Antidumping duty respondents HiSTeel and Dong-A-Steel failed to exhaust their administrative remedies over their claims that the Commerce Department illegally used the Cohen's d test when rooting out "masked dumping," AD petitioner Nucor Tubular Products argued in a Dec. 21 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The plaintiffs had seven weeks after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit released an opinion calling the use of the test into question until the end of the deadline for factual information, yet the respondents did not add the opinion to the record (HiSteel v. U.S., CIT #22-00142).

The Court of International Trade should expedite briefing on exporter Oman Fasteners' bid for a preliminary injunction in an antidumping duty case, Oman Fasteners argued in a Dec. 26 brief, saying the "severe, ongoing, and irreparable harm" caused by a "draconian 154.33% duty rate" threatens to put the company out of business. In its unopposed motion, the AD respondent said it already has had to stop all U.S. shipments of its goods subject to the duties and unless it can "quickly resume U.S. sales, and maintain them during the pendency of this case," it will "face insolvency through default on its existing financial obligations" or suffer irreparable harm (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT #22-00348).

The International Trade Commission violated the law by failing to either conduct a changed circumstances review or reconsider its original antidumping neglibility decision in a sunset review, Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) argued in a group of three related complaints at the Court of International Trade. After another exporter, Colakoglu Dis Ticaret, was revoked from the AD order following court proceedings, the ITC illegally denied any opportunity for Colakoglu's imports to be excluded from the antidumping duty injury proceeding, Erdemir said (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT #22-00349, #22-00350, #22-00351).

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 19-25:

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

The Court of International Trade should let the U.S. add a key "Deficiencies Memorandum" to the record of an antidumping duty case since the document was "intertwined" with the AD proceeding's final results, petitioner Rebar Trade Action Coalition argued in a Dec. 21 reply brief. Arguing the memorandum is part of the record "as a matter of law" since it was "considered by agency decision-makers," the petitioner opposed the initiative from the Grupo Simec-led plaintiffs to oppose the addition of the memo to the record (Grupo Acerero v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00202).

Plaintiffs Amsted Rail Co., ASF-K de Mexico, Strato and TTX will appeal a Court of International Trade decision dismissing their attorney misconduct suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, according to a Dec. 22 notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Questions arose over whether the plaintiffs would actually appeal the case after the trade court rejected a proposed injunction that would bar ARC's former counsel and his firm from accessing confidential information in the underlying International Trade Commission proceeding (see 2212200033) (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00307).

The National Marine Fisheries Service is proposing to expand its Seafood Import Monitoring Program requirements to cover additional species, as well as amend the SIMP regulations to clarify the responsibilities of the importer of record, it said in a notice released Dec. 27. Comments on the proposal are due March 28.

Many eyes were trained Thursday on U.S. District Court for Delaware for Chief Judge Colm Connolly’s reaction to Nimitz Technologies’ latest refusal to produce bank records, emails and other materials responsive to his Nov. 10 order for documents that would identify third-party funding of four Nimitz patent lawsuits against Bloomberg, BuzzFeed, Cnet and Imagine Learning.

Cannabis and cannabis accessory importers now have a "strong legal argument with potentially broad applications to challenge CBP's seizures" of marijuana paraphernalia in light of two recent Court of International Trade decisions, Harris Bricken lawyer Adams Lee said in a Dec. 16 blog post. Both cases involved the question of whether an importer could enter marijuana-related drug paraphernalia into Washington state, given that marijuana was made legal at the state level but remained illegal federally. Lee said that given how the opinions were structured, a state law repealing a past prohibition on such products "could be enough of an 'authorization' by the state law to block the federal prohibition on importing drug paraphernalia."