The Commerce Department requested a voluntary remand in a March 28 filing at the Court of International Trade so it can reconsider its use of adverse facts available relating to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. The remand is appropriate given Commerce's "evolving practice" on the topic, the brief said. In a separate countervailing duty investigation, Commerce found that it was able to verify that a respondent's U.S. customers did not use the program without certain information requested from the Chinese government (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03912).

The Court of International Trade in a March 28 decision denied mattress importer Ashley Furniture Industries and its foreign manufacturers a request for an open-ended injunction in an antidumping duty case. Judge Timothy Reif said that the plaintiffs failed to show that the threat of liquidation posed immediate irreparable harm and that they clearly had a likelihood to succeed on the merits of the case. The decision cuts against two other CIT decisions granting an open-ended injunction.

The Commerce Department unlawfully decided not to initiate a changed circumstances review following GreenFirst Forest Productions' acquisition of Rayonier A.M. Canada's lumber mills, GreenFirst said in a March 25 complaint at the Court of International Trade. GreenFirst said that Commerce misapplied agency practice in denying the CCR since RYAM's rate was not based on any subsidies it received. The agency also violated Congress' directive to investigate changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review when it declined to embark on the CCR (GreenFirst Forest Products Inc. v. United States, CIT #22-00097).

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

Oregon-based hemp manufacturer We CBD moved to withdraw its case seeking to recover nearly 550 pounds of hemp detained by CBP. Filing at the U.S.District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, the company said that since 16.5 months had elapsed since the seizure, the hemp's value has deteriorated so much that the continued litigation of the case will cost more than the shipment is worth. "For this expense-based reason, and for this reason alone, We CBD hereby withdraws its Verified Claim," the brief said (U.S. v. Approximately 548.22 Pounds of Hemp Detained from We CBD on November 8, 2020, W.D.N.C. #3:21-00267).

A recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling is "bears directly on, and fully supports" plaintiffs Wilmar Trading's, Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia's and Wilmar Oleo North America's arguments in an antidumping duty case over whether a particular market situation exists, the plaintiffs said in a March 21 notice of supplemental authority at the Court of International Trade. The opinion, Nexteel Co. v. U.S., set up a bright line rule over how Commerce can use its PMS authority that cuts against the PMS determination made by Commerce in the antidumping duty matter contested by the plaintiffs, the notice said (Wilmar Trading PTE v. United States, CIT Consol. #18-00121).

The Commerce Department's decision to find that the South Korean government provided electricity below cost for certain tariff classes but still say that electricity provision conferred a non-measurable benefit is illegal, U.S. steel company Nucor Corporation said in a March 25 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Nucor Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00070).

A host of complaints by Victoria's Secret and One Step Up at the Court of International Trade have been reassigned from Judge Thomas Aquilino to Judge Timothy Stanceu. The complaints concern the proper classification of women's garments over a series of entries between 2002 and 2008 (see 2203140036) and ask CIT to direct CBP to reliquidate the entries and refund the excess duties collected, with interest.

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

The Court of International Trade denied pig farrowing crate importer Ikadan System USA's motion for an extension of time to file its monition for judgment but stayed the case until the court sorts through the importer's motion to supplement the record. Ikadan requested the extension since it found out that certain items weren't in the administrative record. Instead of extending the briefing schedule as the plaintiff requested, Judge Leo Gordon stayed the briefing in the case until the matter is sorted out. In response, the U.S. filed a motion stating its lack of opposition to Ikadan's bid to supplement the record despite not conferring with the Justice Department. Ikadan then filed a confidential brief giving the court the missing information (Ikadan System USA v. U.S., CIT #21-00592).