Turkish exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade challenging the Commerce Department's decision on the date of sale of Kaptan's goods in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Turkey (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 24-00018).

The Commerce Department has been illegally expanding the reach of an antidumping duty order on artist canvas from China over years of scope rulings for different parties, a textile company argued in a Feb. 26 motion for judgment filed with the Court of International Trade (Printing Textiles d/b/a/ Berger Textiles v. U.S., CIT # 23-00192).

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

CBP imposed interim restrictions on an importer without informing it of an ongoing Enforce and Protect Act investigation, then put partly confidential information on the record without notice so that the importer couldn’t rebut it, that importer said in a Feb. 26 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Superior Commercial Solutions LLC v. U.S., CIT # 24-00052).

Indian exporter Kumar Industries withdrew its appeal of an antidumping duty case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 23. The company said that it "has elected not to further pursue its appeal," noting that the U.S. consented to the withdrawal (Kumar Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1293).

The Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over an importer’s case under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) because it has previously ruled that an administrative protest against an entry’s liquidation cannot be brought before the liquidation has occurred, that importer said in a brief contesting the U.S. motion to dismiss (Fraserview Remanufacturing Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00063).

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a Feb. 26 confidential order in a case on the antidumping duty investigation on raw honey from Argentina. In a letter to the parties, Judge Claire Kelly said it's her intention to issue a public version of the opinion on or shortly after March 5, giving the parties until March 4 to review the confidential information. In the remand results, Commerce continued to use respondent Nexco's acquisition costs as a proxy for the cost of production of beekeeper supplies (see 2310130049). The agency also struck by its decision to compare Nexco's U.S. sale prices with normal values based on Nexco's third-country sale prices to Germany on a monthly basis instead of a quarterly basis (Nexco v. U.S., CIT # 22-00203).

The U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 26 said it won't review whether whistleblower Brutus Trading should've been granted a hearing by a lower court in its case accusing U.K.-based Standard Chartered Bank of violating sanctions against Iran.

Importer Seneca Foods Corp. opposed the U.S. attempt to extend the deadline to file its remand results in a suit on the Commerce Department's decision to reject the company's requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum duties. The government asked for another 31 days to file its remand decision after initially being given 90 days to conduct the remand and a 45-day extension (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00243).

Parties on the defendants’ side in two cases Feb. 21 opposed a motion of joinder in separate briefs, saying that, although both were litigating claims against an affirmative International Trade Commission injury determination in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on Mexican and Chinese rail couplers, their cases raise “unique” legal issues with little crossover (Amsted Rail Ind. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00268; Wabtec Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00157).