An antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe didn’t cover an exporter’s “rough” pipe fittings, the U.S. and the exporter said, which are distinguished from “unfinished” pipe fittings that would be subject to the order (NORCA Industrial Company, LLC v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00231).

The U.S. said May 28 that service through a German exporter’s U.S. counsel of record in another case was adequate under the trade court’s rules of civil procedure (U.S. v. Koehler Oberkirch, CIT # 24-00014).

Importer Wagner Spray Tech. Corp. told the Court of International Trade that the Commerce Department impermissibly used (k)(1) sources to expand the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China when it included the company's finished heat sink manifold under the AD/CVD orders (Wagner Spray Tech. Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00241).

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

The Canadian government and a group of eight Canadian lumber exporters sought to file an amici curiae brief in a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test to detect "masked" dumping. Filing unopposed for leave to file the briefs on May 28, the parties said they can provide "unique and robust explanations of the Cohen's d denominator, a full understanding of which will" aid the court to settle the issues in the case (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1556).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 30 issued its mandate following a decision dismissing importer Rimco's challenge of antidumping and countervailing duties on its steel wheel entries for a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (see 2404080036). The appellate court said jurisdiction would have been proper under Section 1581(c) as a challenge to a Commerce Department decision, instead of under Sections 1581(a) or 1581(i) as asserted by Rimco. The importer challenged the AD/CVD as being excessive under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Rimco v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2079).

Importer TR International Trading Company submitted a May 28 consent motion to the Court of International Trade asking to extend its case’s discovery period to November 2024 (TR International Trading Company v. U.S., CIT # 19-00217).

Importer PNS Clearance dismissed its case challenging the assessment of a 1.02% antidumping duty rate on its quartz countertops. The company brought suit earlier this year to contest CBP's liquidation of 227 of the quartz countertop entries, claiming that they should be liquidated at the proper de minimis mark (see 2402160049). PNS said it acted as the importer of record but that the actual buyer was M S International and that the exporter was Pokarna Engineered Stone, which received a zero percent AD rate following an AD review of the goods. Counsel for the importer didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on why the case was dismissed (PNS Clearance v. U.S., CIT # 24-00044).

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

The U.S. asked the Court of International Trade for leave to exceed its 7,000 word limit by 2,300 words in a reply brief amid its case against a Chinese exporter of automobile accessories (see 2404100071) (Keystone Automotive Operations v. U.S., CIT # 21-00215).