In Feb. 13 remand comments filed in the Court of International Trade, a domestic petitioner said that CIT erred in its ruling remanding a Moroccan phosphate fertilizer exporter’s CVD determination and that this forced the Commerce Department to incorrectly recalculate the exporter’s costs (The Mosaic Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00116).

CBP on Feb. 15 reversed its finding that importer Columbia Aluminum Products evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China (Columbia Aluminum Products v. United States, CIT # 19-00185).

Exporter Tau-Ken Temir (TKT) and Kazakhstan's Ministry of Trade and Integration argued in a Feb. 12 reply brief that the Commerce Department doesn't have "essentially total discretion to decide deadlines and acceptance of filings." Responding to claims from the U.S. at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, TKT and the Kazakh ministry said the government didn't claim that any prejudice would have resulted from granting TKT's one-day extension request, which would have absolved the company from missing a filing deadline in a countervailing duty proceeding by 90 minutes (Tau-Ken Temir v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).

German corporation Conti, owner of the "Flaminia" vessel, petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit for rehearing on whether the court had personal jurisdiction over Mediterranean Shipping Co. in a suit seeking to confirm a $200 million arbitration award against the shipping giant. Conti said the grounds on which the appellate court rejected personal jurisdiction were twice waived since the company failed to raise them before the trial court and in its opening brief, and are wrong as a "factual matter" (Conti 11. Container Schiffarts-Gmbh & Co. KG M.S., MSC Flaminia v. MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co., 5th Cir. # 22-30808).

A U.S. motion to dismiss an importer's challenge of the way CBP handled liquidation after a prior disclosure amounts to a “mischaracterization” of its complaint, and the Court of International Trade also had jurisdiction over the case pursuant to the Customs Courts Act of 1980, the importer said (Larson-Juhl US v. U.S., CIT # 23-00032).

The Court of International Trade on Feb. 13 dismissed an antidumping duty case brought by exporter Oman Fasteners for lack of prosecution. Mario Toscano, clerk of the court, said that no complaint was filed "within the period" laid out by 19 U.S.C. 1516a, which says an interested party may file a summons and complaint within 30 days of a determination from the Commerce Department. Oman Fasteners brought the suit to contest the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from Oman in which it received a zero percent dumping margin. No separate lawsuit was filed by the petitioner in the review, Mid Continent Steel & Wire (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT # 24-00008).

An importer and plaintiff-intervenor in an ongoing case regarding Thai steel truck wheels said Feb. 13 that the Commerce Department was ignoring the plain language of a scope of the relevant antidumping and countervailing duty orders to find its products were in-scope (Asia Wheel Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00143).

The U.S. on Feb. 9 argued the Commerce Department correctly considered all relevant prior scope rulings in finding that an importer’s bricks are within the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on magnesia carbon bricks from China (Fedmet Resources v. U.S., CIT # 23-00117).

German exporter AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke will appeal a December Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Germany. The company will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where it will contest the decision to uphold Commerce's proposed quality code for sour service pressure vessel plate (see 2312210054). The court said Dillinger didn't make the "requisite showing to demonstrate that reconsideration is appropriate" after the court already rejected the claim (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, CIT # 17-00158).

The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 8 confidential order sustained in part and remanded in part the Commerce Department's findings in an antidumping duty proceeding on thermal paper from Germany. In a letter, Judge Gary Katzmann gave the litigants until Feb. 12 to review the confidential information in the opinion ahead of issuing the public version of the decision (Mantra Americas v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00632).