German exporter thyssenkrupp Rasselstein filed a notice of dismissal on April 26 at the Court of International Trade in its case contesting the Commerce Department's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on tin mill products from Germany. The dismissal came before the company filed its complaint in the suit, only filing the summons on March 29. Counsel for the exporter didn't respond to a request for comment (thyssenkrupp Rasselstein v. United States, CIT # 24-00067).

Antidumping petitioner SSAB Enterprises argued that the Commerce Department was justified in using partial adverse facts available against respondent Salzgitter Flachstahl due to the company's failure to cooperate to the best of its ability. While Salzgitter said it couldn't submit certain requested information because one of its affiliated resellers, Salzgitter Mannesmann Stahlhandel, didn't keep that information, SSAB said that "Salzgitter cannot rely on" Salzgitter Mannesmann's "sloppy recordkeeping as a valid excuse to justify its failure to provide Commerce with the requested manufacturer information" (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1219).

Several importers appealed for relief April 22 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, saying in their opening brief that the International Trade Commission wrongly reached an affirmative critical circumstances determination regarding their Vietnamese honey imports and the Court of International Trade erroneously upheld it (Sweet Harvest Foods v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1370).

Thai exporter Sahamitr Pressure Container is challenging the Commerce Department's decision to reclassify certain cylinders as outside the scope of the antidumping duty order on steel propane cylinders from Thailand as part of its model match methodology. In its complaint, filed at the Court of International Trade April 24, Sahamitr also challenged Commerce's use of the Cohen's d test to detect "masked" dumping in the 2021-22 review of the AD order (Sahamitr Pressure Container v. U.S., CIT # 24-00064).

Twenty-one U.S. citizens who were harmed -- and the estate of one who was killed -- in 2006 Hezbollah rocket attacks may bring the new owners of one of the terrorist group’s alleged major funders to court in New York, the state’s highest court certified April 18.

The Commerce Department unlawfully rescinded an administrative review, falsely determining that an exporter hadn't made any U.S. sales during the period being examined, the exporter said in April 19 motion for judgment (China Cornici Co. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00217).

A domestic petitioner April 19 supported the U.S. in a case involving an antidumping duty investigation on freight rail couplers, saying that the case’s plaintiff, an exporter, had misunderstood the rules of statutory interpretation. That exporter has argued that the Commerce Department is barred from beginning new investigations fewer than two years before a previous one was completed (see 2404080049), pointing to statutory language governing changed circumstances reviews that appears to apply broadly (Wabtec Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 23-00161).

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on April 19 partially dismissed a lawsuit from sanctioned individuals Mir Rahman Rahmani and Hafi Ajmal Rahmani and over two dozen of their companies challenging their sanctions listing for their alleged role in a corruption scheme that swiped millions of dollars from U.S. contracts in Afghanistan (Mir Rahman Rahmani v. Janet Yellen, D.D.C. # 24-00285).

The United States asked for 14 more days to file its reply brief in an appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the validity of the Commerce Department's non-market economy policy in antidumping duty cases. The government said it needs more time to prepare its draft brief and receive input from DOJ "supervisory counsel" and Commerce attorneys (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2245).

The Court of International Trade again remanded the Commerce Department's remand results in the 2018 review of the countervailing duty order on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea, in an April 19 confidential opinion. In a letter to the litigants, Judge Mark Barnett gave the parties until April 26 to review the confidential information in the opinion. Barnett said Commerce shall "reconsider or further explain" its decision not to investigate the off-peak sale of electricity allegedly for less than adequate remuneration.