Exporter Can Tho Import Export Seafood Joint Stock Co. dismissed its appeal of the Commerce Department's 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. The company brought the suit to contest Commerce's denial of the exporter's byproduct offsets for "fresh broken meat" and "fresh fish waste by-products" (see 2405140061). Can Tho also claimed that Commerce illegally liquidated some of its entries at the "punitive" Vietnam-wide rate instead of its own rate (Can Tho Import Export Seafood Joint Stock Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00080).

The United States and an importer of a wearable blanket, similar to a Snuggie, again traded briefs Oct. 10 regarding admissibility of evidence; this time, they specifically covered the issue of whether a CBP employee could testify at an upcoming bench trial (Cozy Comfort Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00173).

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 9 denied importer Retractable Technologies' motion to quash a prehearing deposition subpoena from the U.S. in the company's suit against the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's 100% Section 301 rate hike on needles and syringes (Retractable Technologies v. U.S., CIT # 24-00185).

A U.S. steel producer joined the government (see 2409170033) Oct. 9 in defending a Commerce Department finding that the South Korean government’s provision of electricity at lower prices during off-peak hours was de facto specific to an exporter and that South Korea’s cap-and-trade program was countervailable (POSCO v. United States, CIT # 24-00006).

The International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association filed its own amicus curiae brief Oct. 8 also supporting ITC in its current appeal of Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden’s refusal to redact a public opinion the agency worries could contain business proprietary information (see 2312200070). Its brief follows another submitted by the Customs and International Trade Bar Association a day prior (see 2410080055) (CVB v. United States, CIT # 21-00288) (CVB, Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1504).

The U.S. on Oct 8, joined by defendant-intervenors Oct. 9, pushed back against an aluminum importer’s claim that the Commerce Department had wrongly looked at only two of five factors in a circumvention investigation to determine a product’s country of origin -- even finding the other three factors actually weighed against its ruling (Hanon Systems Alabama Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00013).

The U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 30 granted exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co.'s application for more time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in an antidumping duty scope case. The high court sent the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit a letter notifying the court of the extension on Oct. 7 (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2181).

Importer Retractable Technologies on Oct. 8 asked the Court of International Trade to quash the government's motion seeking corporate testimony from the company in Retractable's suit on the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's 100% Section 301 tariff hike on needles and syringes. Retractable said an upcoming evidentiary hearing before the trade court will give the government the information it seeks and that reasonable time wasn't allowed for the company to respond to the subpoena (Retractable Technologies v. United States, CIT # 24-00185).

An importer of aluminum extrusions from China -- one of those found by the Court of International Trade in June to have not evaded antidumping and countervailing duties (see 2407100048) -- asked the trade court to award it attorney’s fees, saying that, as a result of the litigation, it had gone out of business (H&E Home v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00337).

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 8 granted importer HH Associates US' voluntary dismissal of its customs case. The importer brought the suit in September 2023 to contest CBP's classification of its glassware imports under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7013.37.2090, dutiable at 22.5%. HH Associates said the goods should receive duty-free treatment under the same subheading. Counsel for the importer didn't respond to a request for comment (HH Associates US v. United States, CIT # 23-00200).