On appeal, the U.S. and a petitioner each defended the Court of International Trade’s acceptance of its thrice-remanded (see 2401190037) countervailing duty calculation for Russian phosphate fertilizer exporters (The Mosaic Company v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 21-00117, -20, -21).

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Because no party now opposes the results of a remanded scope ruling on engines with horizontal crankshafts from China, the government asked the Court of International Trade on July 18 to sustain the ruling (Zhejiang Amerisun Technology Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00011).

The Commerce Department improperly decided that it can use Romania as the primary surrogate in the 2021-22 antidumping duty review on chlorinated isocyanurates from China after Romania wasn't submitted as a potential surrogate prior to the surrogate country comment deadline, exporters Heze Huayi Chemical Co. and Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co. argued (Bio-Lab v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00024).

In a heavily redacted public brief, a mattress petitioner pushed back on several complex conclusions reached by the Commerce Department on remand regarding an antidumping duty order review on mattresses from Indonesia (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. U.S., CIT # 21-00277).

An importer arguing that its Chinese-origin garlic that is boiled, then frozen shouldn’t be subject to antidumping duties on fresh garlic from China filed a motion for judgment in the Court of International Trade on July 15 (Export Packers Company Limited v. U.S., CIT # 24-00061).

Loper Bright was cited yet again -- this time in a challenge to a sunset review’s finding that a softwood lumber exporter probably would continue dumping its products in the absence antidumping duties -- as attorneys continue trying to define the new limits of judicial discretion in the post-Chevron era (see 2406280051) (Resolute FP Canada v. U.S., CIT # 23-00095).

Hoverboards are toys, not transportation devices, an importer argued in a motion for judgment filed July 12 in one of a couple of identical classification disputes it has brought in recent years (see 2110150056 and 2112100053) (3BTech v. U.S., CIT # 21-00026).

Importer Amsted Rail Co. and its Mexican maquiladora affiliate ASF-K Mexico told the Court of International Trade on July 15 that the Commerce Department's failure to disqualify its former counsel, Buchanan Ingersoll partner Daniel Pickard, invalidates the agency's antidumping duty investigation on freight rail couplers from Mexico. Filing a motion for judgment, ARC said Pickard "betrayed" the company by using its information against it in an AD petition and that it didn't consent to Pickard representing an opposing party (Amsted Rail Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00242).

The Court of International Trade in a confidential July 15 order denied customs broker Seko Customs Brokerage's application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against CBP's temporary suspension of the company from the Entry Type 86 pilot and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program. Judge Claire Kelly said she intends to issue a public version of the opinion "on or shortly after" July 23, giving the litigants until July 22 to review the confidential information in the decision (Seko Customs Brokerage v. U.S., CIT # 24-00097).