Each party to a conflict involving a raw Argentinian honey antidumping duty investigation on Dec. 22 accused the opposing side of misunderstanding the case before the court (Nexco v. United States, CIT # 22-00203).

DOJ’s admission that an importer’s monthly calendars and desk calendars were classifiable as “calendars” meant that the company’s weekly calendars, which had the same features, also should be classified as such, an organizational tools importer said (Blue Sky The Color of Imagination, LLC v. United States, CIT # 21-00624).

The Court of International Trade "should not entertain" importer Greentech Energy Solution's challenge to CBP's extension of the liquidation deadline for the 19 entries at issue since it doesn't appear in Greentech's amended complaint, the U.S. argued. Filing a reply brief Dec. 22, the government said that even if the claim was in the complaint, the trade court doesn't have jurisdiction to hear it since Greentech should have filed a protest with CBP to first challenge the decision (Greentech Energy Solutions v. United States, CIT # 23-00118).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a text-only order on Dec. 22 gave plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation more time to file their reply brief. The plaintiffs, led by HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, now have until Feb. 12 to file their reply after counsel for the companies said they needed more time due to their "significant additional client responsibilities and obligations that substantially interfere with their ability to file the reply brief by the current deadline" (HMTX Industries v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 26 granted a request from the U.S. for 3,000 additional words for a reply brief in a case involving use of the Cohen's d test to detect "masked" dumping and two accounting items. The government said each of the three matters raised in the case is "complex and technical in nature" (see 2310250039), creating "good cause" for the additional words (Marmen v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1877).

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 22 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty case in which the agency was told to verify a Thai mattress importer's data "insofar as the Department relied upon that data." Judge M. Miller Baker noted because the importer, Saffron Living Co., withdrew from the case and no remaining party opposes the remand results, the court will uphold the results and the associated 763.28% antidumping duty rate for Saffron.

The International Trade Commission isn't required to rule specifically on underselling in injury investigations -- it only needs to consider it, the Court of International Trade said last week. CIT also said overselling of a product by importers does not necessarily mean domestic producers’ prices haven't been impacted.

The U.S. on Dec. 20 added an attorney to the massive Section 301 litigation currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The government added Megan Grimball, assistant general counsel in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, bringing the number of government attorneys involved in the suit to nine. Grimball has worked at USTR since 2018 and, before that, as an attorney-adviser at the State Department.

The International Trade Commission asked the Court of International Trade to temporarily redact its decision sustaining an injury determination on mattresses since the commission believes there to be business proprietary information in the opinion that may need to be redacted (CVB v. United States, CIT # 21-00288).