Jacob Kopnick

Importer Worldwide Distribution dropped its bid to participate in an appeal of an antidumping duty review after failing to file a notice of appeal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had asked the company whether it sought to take part in the case as an appellant, and, if so, what the court's jurisdiction is over such an appeal (Sahamitr Pressure Container v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-2043).

U.S. seafood seller Luscious Seafood argued on Sept. 13 that the Commerce Department misinterpreted the statute when it found that the company didn't qualify as a bona fide wholesaler of the domestic like product. As a result of its finding, Commerce found Luscious' request for administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam invalid (Luscious Seafood v. United States, CIT # 24-00069).

The U.S. and surety company Aegis Security Insurance Co. on Sept. 13 asked the Court of International Trade to use the items produced in discovery in a separate case involving both parties (U.S. v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 22-00327).

Countervailing duty petitioner Nucor Corp. argued on Sept. 9 that the Commerce Department erred in reconsidering the alleged benefit conferred by debt-to-equity swap element of exporter KG Dongbu's debt restructuring program. Nucor said Commerce "has the inherent authority to reconsider its prior determinations, whether or not that reconsideration is based on specific types of new evidence on the record," making the decision to countervail the debt-to-equity swaps lawful, despite the agency having come to different conclusions in the past (KG Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00047).

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

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Sept. 13 dismissed a suit from three U.S.-based honey producers related to the alleged import of "fake" honey. Judge Daniel Calabretta held that the honey producers, led by Henry's Bullfrog Bees, failed to include sufficiently specific factual allegations to support their claims that the defendants -- honey importers and distributors -- engaged in fraud (Henry's Bullfrog Bees v. Sunland Trading, E.D. Cal. # 2:21-00582).

Antidumping duty petitioner Daikin America on Sept. 9 opposed the Commerce Department's remand results finding it wasn't feasible for respondent Gujarat Fluorochemicals to report its movement expenses on a transaction-specific basis. Daikin said the agency wrongfully said Gujarat's grade-based allocation was as specific as it could be and didn't cause "inaccuracies and distortions" (Daikin America v. United States, CIT # 22-00122).

The EU Court of Justice on Sept. 10 said the restriction on providing brokering services in relation to military equipment to parties in or for use in Russia applies even when the goods were never imported into an EU member state, according to an unofficial translation. The court said if this weren't the case, then the "prohibition could easily be circumvented" by shipping equipment on a route that didn't pass through EU territory.

Antidumping petitioner Coalition for Fair Trade in Shopping Bags filed a pair of complaints at the Court of International Trade on Sept. 12 challenging the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigations on paper shopping bags from Colombia and Portugal (Coalition for Fair Trade in Shopping Bags v. United States, CIT #'s 24-00157, -00158).

The EU General Court on Sept. 11 rejected the Russian National Settlement Depository's challenge to its listing on the Russian sanctions list. The court said that the European Council didn't fail to show that the depository, which provides financial services and securities record-keeping and custody services, plays an "essential role in the functioning of Russia's financial system."