The Court of International Trade on Aug. 16 reassigned an antidumping duty scope case on Chinese garlic from Judge Gary Katzmann to Judge M. Miller Baker. Importer Marcatus QED filed suit, claiming the Commerce Department erred in finding that the company's shipments of preserved garlic in brine fell within the scope of the AD order on fresh garlic from China (see 2406140039). Baker already has been assigned at least one other case related to the scope of antidumping duties on Chinese garlic (see 2408090042) (Marcatus QED v. U.S., CIT # 24-00091).

Antidumping duty petitioner Catfish Farmers of America on Aug. 15 opposed the Commerce Department's remand results in a suit on the 2017-18 administrative review of the AD order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. In comments submitted to the Court of International Trade, the petitioner contested Commerce's conclusion that India offered better quality surrogate value data than Indonesia for generally valuing the fish fillets' factors of production (Catfish Farmers of America v. U.S., CIT # 20-00105).

The U.S. acknowledged on Aug. 16 that CBP mistakenly liquidated certain tire entries subject to an injunction from the Court of International Trade. Filing a status report, the government said the Commerce Department "took corrective action," telling CBP to "promptly return to unliquidated status any entries that had been inadvertently liquidated in violation of the Court’s order" (Titan Tire Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00233).

The U.S. and antidumping duty petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire defended the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test to detect "masked" dumping, in a pair of reply briefs at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Taiwanese steel nail exporters, led by PT Enterprise, challenged Commerce's use of a simple average for the denominator of the Cohen's d coefficient instead of a weighted average (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1556).

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

Chinese semiconductor equipment maker Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment (AMEC) sued the Pentagon last week for wrongly designating the firm as a Chinese military company. AMEC claimed that its designation violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 and the U.S. Constitution (Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment v. United States, D.D.C. # 24-02357).

Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) will appeal its three separate cases filed at the Court of International Trade regarding the sunset review of an antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Turkey (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT #'s 22-00349, -00350, -00351).

A Swiss watchmaker embroiled in a customs dispute with the U.S. since 2018 "failed to provide” evidence that the watches its commercial invoices identified were actually the ones it imported, the government said Aug. 13 in support of its cross-motion for judgment (Ildico v. United States, CIT # 18-00136).

In a confidential order, the Court of International Trade on Aug. 15 remanded the final results of an administrative review on frozen shrimp from India. In doing so, Judge Thomas Aquilino granted the motions for judgment of both an exporter and a petitioner (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00202).

Importer CVB filed a stipulation of dismissal in its case challenging the Commerce Department's scope decision finding that the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China doesn't cover seven models of wood platform beds imported by Zinus. Most recently in the case, the U.S. argued that CVB didn't have standing to challenge the scope decision because CVB is an importer and can't show that it was injured by the scope ruling (see 2407160052). The government said none of CVB's goods is at issue. It said the importer challenges the determination that another company's entries are outside the scope of the order, but "it has failed to demonstrate what stake it has in this determination." Counsel for CVB didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (CVB v. U.S., CIT # 24-00036).