A recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion, Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. U.S., supports a group of mattress exporters' Court of International Trade case contesting an antidumping duty investigation on mattresses from Vietnam, the exporters said in an April 25 notice of supplemental authority. In Mid Continent, the Federal Circuit remanded the Commerce Department's decision to use a simple average to calculate the pooled standard deviation when using the Cohen's d test in its differential pricing analysis to target "masked dumping" (see 2204210031). The mattress exporters, led by Ashley Furniture Industries, seek to piggyback on this decision, arguing that it confirms their position that "the use of simple-average standard deviation rather than weighted-average or population standard deviation represents an unreasonable departure from the original intent of the developers of the Cohen’s d formula" (Ashley Furniture Industries v. United States, CIT #21-00283).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Court of International Trade granted relief to the U.S. from its responsibility to file a reply brief and an administrative record in response to importer AA Metals' claims under Section 1581(i), the Court of International Trade's "residual" jurisdiction. Both sides agreed that jurisdiction under AA Metals' scope challenge fits under Section 1581(c). The U.S.'s April 25 consent motion asks to drop the Section 1581(i) claims (AA Metals v. U.S., CIT #21-00051).

The U.S.'s opposition to a rehearing motion from a Chinese aluminum extrusion exporter and its affiliates over their alternative arguments in a countervailing duty case falls flat, the company and its affiliates said in an April 25 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Taizhou United Imp. & Exp. Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. #16-00009). DOJ argued against the rehearing bid, claiming that the alternative claims were waived since they were not brought up during remand. The plaintiff-intervenors, all associated with Jangho Group, replied that the court said it would address a separate issue first, then move to the alternate claims. The court's failure to do so warrants a rehearing, the brief said.

The Commerce Department submitted an amended remand submission to the Court of International Trade removing "extraneous legal argument" as instructed by the court. The remand results, originally submitted in January, excluded exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co.'s dual-stenciled pipe from the scope of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. The court said that Commerce was wrong to include Saha Thai's products in the scope of the order since there was no International Trade Commission injury determination on line pipe from Thailand (see 2110070029) (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company v. United States, CIT #20-00133).

The Court of International Trade remanded parts and sustained parts of the Commerce Department's administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam in a confidential April 25 opinion. In a public order, Judge M. Miller Baker remanded the case to Commerce to explain whether Indonesia is economically comparable to Vietnam using data the agency previously used, reconsider its finding that Indian data is superior to Indonesian data for valuating certain factors of production, address evidence submitted by plaintiff Catfish Farmers of America over the ratio of whole live fish to fillets, and discuss the evidence relating to moisture content.

Producing a large volume of evidence does not establish the relevance or persuasiveness of such evidence, plaintiff Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee said in an April 19 brief blasting the Commerce Department's evidentiary record in an antidumping duty and countervailing duty exclusion case. Merely handing over a list of record information does not substitute for an explanation of how the evidence supports the exclusion finding, AEFTC said (Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee v. United States, CIT #21-00253).

While antidumping duty respondent Goodluck India Limited does not oppose DOJ's motion to partially dismiss its case, it wants the Court of International Trade to find jurisdiction for its case under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction. Responding to the partial dismissal motion in an April 22 reply brief, Goodluck used the opportunity to also characterize the U.S. government's statement of facts as "inaccurate" (Goodluck India Limited v. United States, CIT #22-00024).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Court of International Trade should not grant a stay in a consolidated antidumping matter pending resolution of a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit since the impact of this case is "speculative at best," DOJ said in an April 21 reply brief. Further, the stay should be denied since the Federal Circuit case, Stupp Corp. v. United States, may only affect two legal issues in the case led by exporter Koehler Paper, leaving six issues unaffected, DOJ argued (Matra Americas v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00632).