DOJ in a Nov. 20 brief once again defended its right to use adverse facts available in calculating an Indian quartz surface product exporter's antidumping duty rate after that importer missed a filing deadline by several hours. It also stood by its all-others rate for other Indian quartz exporters against a domestic petitioner's challenge (Cambria Company v. U.S., CIT # 23-00007).

The Court of International Trade in a text-only order ordered parties in a suit on the antidumping duty investigation on aluminum foil from Turkey to respond to the government's request for a partial remand regarding the Commerce Department's duty drawback adjustment for respondent Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret. The U.S. said it wants another chance to consider or further explain the "ratio used for the duty drawback adjustment" in the case after considering Assan's arguments (see 2311270064) (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 21-00616).

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

Exporters, led by Salzgitter Mannesmann Grobblech, will appeal a Court of International Trade decision sustaining the use of adverse facts available on Salzgitter's sales for which the company could not identify or report the manufacturer in the antidumping duty investigation on cut-to-length carbon and alloy steel plate from Germany. While the trade court upheld the Commerce Department's decision to use facts available in 2019, the court sent back the way Commerce used partial AFA in the investigation. The agency's decision was eventually sustained over Salzgitter's claim that the use of partial AFA was unreasonable or unlawful (see 2311160012). According to the notice of appeal, the companies will take their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, CIT # 17-00158).

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

The government's request for a remand in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation to provide the parties with access to confidential business information is a "hollow" one since the parties have already gained access to this information via a judicial protective order at the Court of International Trade, plaintiff Phoenix Metal Co. said. Opposing the voluntary remand request from the U.S., Phoenix said the court should further explain CBP's decision to reject any information deemed to be "new factual information" (Phoenix Metal Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00048).

The U.S. opposed the bids by two groups of Canadian lumber exporters to intervene in two cases challenging the 2021 review of the antidumping duty order on softwood lumber products from Canada. The government said in its pair of briefs that since the exporters -- one group led by AJ Forest Products and the other by Chaleur Forest Products -- didn't actively participate in the review, they cannot intervene in the lawsuits (Government of Canada v. United States, CIT # 23-00187, -00188).

CBP improperly levied Section 301 duties against Greenington's bamboo furniture imports from China, the importer argued in a Nov. 27 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Greenington said CBP wasn't supported in finding that its entries didn't qualify for a Section 301 exclusion under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9903.88.67, which covers "household furniture of high-pressure laminated bamboo, other than babies' or children's furniture" set under subheading 9403.82.0015 (Greenington v. United States Customs and Border Protection, CIT # 23-00243).

The Court of International Trade on Nov. 22 and Nov. 28 granted voluntary motions to dismiss six customs cases. One case, brought by importer POSCO International America Corp., challenged CBP's denial of its protest claiming an error in how the agency appraised and liquidated one of its entries (POSCO International America Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00421).

The U.S. on Nov. 27 filed a partial motion to remand regarding the Commerce Department's duty drawback adjustment in exporter Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret's case concerning the antidumping duty investigation on aluminum foil from Turkey. The government said it wants another chance to consider or further explain the "ratio used for the duty drawback adjustment" in the case after considering Assan's arguments. Assan consented to the request, while the petitioners, led by the Aluminum Association Trade Enforcement Working Group, said it takes no position on the motion without having looked at a copy of the motion (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 21-00616).