A U.S. mattress importer on Nov. 12 opposed the government’s motion to dismiss its challenge to the International Trade Commission’s critical circumstances determination on mattresses from Burma, saying that its questionnaire response in the ITC’s investigation was enough to give it standing at the Court of International Trade (Pay Less Here v. U.S., CIT # 24-00152).

The U.S. brief opposing exporter Koehler Oberkirch GmbH's petition for mandamus relief on the question of whether the government properly served the exporter relies on "case law of other circuits" and not the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Koehler argued. Filing a response brief on Nov. 12, the exporter said the "law of other jurisdictions does not determine legal error or a clear abuse of discretion in this Circuit" (In Re Koehler Oberkirch GmbH, Fed. Cir. # 25-106).

Exporter Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xiang) Industry Co. has no statutory or constitutional standing to challenge CBP's issuance of or refusal to modify the withhold release order on silica-based products made by its parent company Hoshine Silicon or its subsidiaries, the U.S. argued. Filing a reply brief at the Court of International Trade on Nov. 8, the government said Hoshine offered an incorrect "zone of interests" analysis to bolster its claim of statutory standing (Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xing) Industry Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00048).

Foreign investment lawyers aren’t expecting a big change in how the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. operates under a second Trump administration, although a new round of tariffs against China and the continued easing of export restrictions among close U.S. allies could change the investment landscape and the number of filings submitted to CFIUS.

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

Mediation at the Court of International Trade resulted in a settlement of all issues in importer Valbruna Slater Stainless' suit on the Commerce Department's denials of its Section 232 steel tariff exclusion requests. Judge Leo Gordon served as mediator and told the court on Nov. 12 that the mediation settled the case (Valbruna Slater Stainless v. United States, CIT # 21-00027).

The Commerce Department erred in finding that the South Korean government's provision of electricity below cost was de facto specific in the 2022 review of the countervailing duty order on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea, exporter Hyundai Steel Co. argued in a Nov. 12 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Hyundai added that Commerce violated the statute on specificity in CVD cases in relying on the "original electricity consumption data" for its de facto specificity finding (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00190).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 4-10:

Tomato exporters led by NS Brands failed to show good cause to untimely intervene in a case on the Commerce Department's 1996 antidumping duty investigation on Mexican tomatoes, petitioner The Florida Tomato Exchange argued on Nov. 8. The petitioner said NS Brands knew when the case started that the parties were challenging Commerce's failure to continue the proceeding and "has shown no reason it could not have timely intervened in this proceeding" (Bioparques de Occidente v. United States, CIT Consol. # 19-00204).