Exporter Wabtec filed a supplemental brief March 21 claiming that an International Trade Commission investigation was trying to reach lost export sales on behalf of the domestic industry (Wabtec Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00160, -00161).

The U.S. defended the Commerce Department's ability to require petitioners to file a notice of intent to participate in sunset reviews at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In a reply brief on March 21, the government said the "whole-text canon of statutory interpretation" doesn't support petitioner Archroma's challenge to this requirement, since the statute on which the company bases its claim "does not limit Commerce’s power to impose procedural requirements to be met before a domestic interested party may submit the information called for by the statute" (Archroma U.S. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-2159).

The Commerce Department is working to finalize an October proposed rule that will change how the agency regulates in-transit shipments that are first imported through the U.S. from foreign countries before being exported to another foreign destination (see 2410300040).

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

No lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade.

Parties originally excluded from an expedited countervailing duty review on Canadian softwood lumber opposed the government's bid to file a supplemental brief to a status report in a dispute on whether the excluded parties can obtain refunds of CVD cash deposits. The originally excluded parties said the U.S. failed to establish good cause for submitting a reply to the status report (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, CIT # 19-00122).

Importer Under the Weather defended its motion for leave to amend its complaint in a customs case, arguing that the government's grounds for opposition to the motion, untimeliness and prejudice, don't defeat it. The importer said any delay the Court of International Trade might find due to the motion isn't "undue" and that the amendment doesn't prejudice the U.S., since the amendment would add a claim based on the "same transactions and events as the original complaint" (Under the Weather v. United States, CIT # 21-00211).

In another missed deadline case (see 2501070084, 2409100065) and 2501270069), Chinese steel rack exporter Nanjing Dongsheng Shelf Manufacturing said again March 17 that the Commerce Department shouldn’t have hit it with adverse facts available for assuming a deadline extension offered to most separate rate review respondents had also been granted to it (Nanjing Dongsheng Shelf Manufacturing Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00085).

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 10-16:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stayed the deadline for court-appointed amicus curiae Andrew Dhuey to submit his amicus brief in a case on the International Trade Commission's treatment of business proprietary information amid a spat over whether Dhuey can access all confidential filings in the appeal's docket. Dhuey submitted a motion seeking access to all confidential information in the case, which the government said it will oppose (In Re United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1566).