The U.S. and Indian exporters led by Kisaan Die Tech Private Limited on Sept. 30 reached a settlement in pair of cases on the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel flanges from India (Kisaan Die Tech Private Limited v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00512).

After the Commerce Department once again refused in an administrative review to investigate an alleged countervailable subsidy provided by the South Korean government, the original investigation’s petitioner claimed the department’s results upon remand (see 2408160038) actually showed a reluctance on Commerce's part to investigate time of use electricity supply systems that can sustain themselves annually (Nucor Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00182).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 1 granted dismissal of government's appeal contesting the erroneous deemed liquidation of its goods that were subject to suspended liquidation. The Court of International Trade had ruled Fraserview didn't need a protest to file its suit (see 2401250039). CIT said that because the statute for deemed liquidation requires that the entries not be suspended, CBP's notices of deemed liquidation didn't operate to actually liquidate the entries. The U.S. appealed the decision but dropped the matter in a joint stipulation filed in September (see 2409060005) (Fraserview Remanufacturing v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-2049).

Exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) on Sept. 30 defended its bid to consolidate its three appeals at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Turkey. Erdemir said all three cases are "intertwined" since they are "based on the same triggering act" (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-2242).

A Belgium citric acid exporter isn’t alleging any flaw in its treatment in a review -- it’s just trying to challenge the settled, and reasonable, Commerce Department practice of never using quarterly cost allocation analyses for conversion costs in review, the U.S. said Sept. 27 (Citribel v. U.S., CIT # 24-00010).

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 30 granted a pair of voluntary dismissal motions from importer Travelway Group International on its two import classification cases. Both cases sought Section 301 exclusions for its backpack and bag entries of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 4202.92.3120 and 4202.92.3131. Counsel for Travelway didn't immediately respond to request for comment (Travelway Group International v. United States, CIT #s 22-00313, 23-00057).

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 27 granted exporter Zhejiang Jingli Bearing Technology Co.'s motion to sever and dismiss it from a lawsuit on the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China. The suit will continue with plaintiffs Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. and C&U Americas. The companies brought the case to allege that the Commerce Department unnecessarily applied partial adverse facts available and errantly conducted a pricing differential analysis (see 2403060080). Counsel for Zhejiang Jingli didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on the reason for its voluntary dismissal (Zhejiang Jingli Bearing Technology Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00038).

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 30 issued its mandate in an antidumping duty case brought by importer PrimeSource Building Products and exporter Cheng Ch International Co. The court held in its decision that the Commerce Department's use of only adverse facts available rates to set the rate for the non-individually examined respondents in antidumping proceedings, known as the "expected method," isn't presumptively unreasonable (see 2408070020) (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2128).

Ljiljana Karadzic asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to set aside its order dismissing her suit challenging her designation on the Office of Foreign Assets Control's Specially Designated Nationals List (see 2408070040). Karadzic claimed the D.C. court failed to address her claim that OFAC made an "unreasonable" decision in "declining to remove her from the list" (Ljiljana Zelen Karadzic v. Lisa Palluconi, D.D.C. # 23-01226).