The Commerce Department is amending final results of the countervailing duty administrative review on narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge from China (C-570-953) originally published July 28, 2021, to align with the final decision in a court case that challenged a rate in those results.

Responding to motions for judgment filed by the government of Canada and Canadian lumber exporters led by a mandatory respondent, the U.S. pushed back Aug. 22 against claims that, among other things, it had wrongly included a legacy contract in the calculation of the respondent’s costs and found a “bookkeeping convenience” to be evidence of less-than-fair-value transactions between its affiliates (see 2404110063) (Government of Canada v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00187).

Conservation groups Sea Shepherd New Zealand and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit seeking an import ban on fish from New Zealand's West Coast North Island inshore trawl and set net fisheries under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (Sea Shepherd New Zealand v. U.S., CIT # 20-00112).

An importer filed Aug. 21 its long-delayed motion for judgment in its test case alleging its Chinese-origin selective catalytic reduction catalysts had wrongly been assessed Section 301 duties. The catalysts were misclassified by CBP as centrifuges instead of “reaction initiators, reaction accelerators and catalytic preparations, not elsewhere specified or included,” it said (Mitsubishi Power Americas v. U.S., CIT #21-00573).

Antidumping duty petitioner the Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations on Aug. 22 moved to file an amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a case on the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test to detect "masked" dumping. The committee filed the brief in response to arguments from amici led by the Canadian government, which invoked various academic literature on the use of the test (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1556).

Seko Customs Brokerage on Aug. 22 opposed the government's bid to get more time to file a brief in support of its motion to dismiss Seko's case against the company's removal from the Entry Type 86 pilot and Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism programs. The customs broker said the U.S. failed to show good cause why it should get more time to file the brief (Seko Customs Brokerage v. U.S., CIT # 24-00097).

Washington, D.C., can proceed with its price-fixing antitrust claim against Amazon, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled Thursday. The ruling reversed a trial court’s dismissal of the case (docket 22-CV-0657). The district's then Attorney General Karl Racine (D) filed the lawsuit in 2021, claiming Amazon used “restrictive contract provisions and agreements” to fix prices across the internet and prevent third-party sellers from lowering prices on other websites. In 2022, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia sided with Amazon, dismissing the case without providing specific reasons. The AG’s office described the dismissal as a “confusing oral ruling” that misapplied antitrust law. District officials claimed the trial court misconstrued aspects of a “restraint-of-trade claim” and “failed to accept the ... factual allegations as true,” according to the filing. In an opinion for the appeals court, Associate Judge Corinne Ann Beckwith wrote, “We hold that the District alleged sufficient facts to survive the motion to dismiss and therefore reverse the judgment of the Superior Court.” AG Brian Schwalb (D) said Thursday: “We will continue fighting to stop Amazon’s unfair and unlawful practices that have raised prices for District consumers and stifled innovation and choice across online retail.” Amazon, in a statement Thursday, said it disagrees with the city’s claims and looks forward to “presenting facts in court that demonstrate how good these policies are for consumers.” Amazon doesn’t “highlight or promote offers that are not competitively priced,” it said. “It’s part of our commitment to featuring low prices to earn and maintain customer trust, which we believe is the right decision for both consumers and sellers in the long run.”

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

Importer Seneca Foods Corp. filed a notice of supplemental authority at the Court of International Trade on Aug. 21, claiming that a recent Section 232 exclusion request denial from the Commerce Department is relevant to the resolution of its case (Seneca Foods Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00243).

U.S. importer CME Acquisitions argued that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's recent decision in PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S. didn't overrule the appellate court's decision in Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co. v. U.S. regarding how the Commerce Department sets the non-selected respondents' antidumping duty rate (CME Acquisitions v. United States, CIT # 24-00032).