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).
The U.S. and Indian frozen shrimp exporter Megaa Moda supported March 7 the Commerce Department’s results on remand of an antidumping duty administrative review (see 2411270055). Finding that Megaa Moda knew certain of its home market sales would be exported required affirmative evidence that the record lacked, they said (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00202).
Associations' views diverged widely on the wisdom of codifying a modified Type 86 process and tweaking the clear-from-the-manifest process for de minimis entries. Groups also disagreed on CBP's proposals for what new data should be submitted. The agency received 95 comments on its proposal, though dozens were from individuals and didn't make substantive suggestions. Some associations and companies addressed both this proposed rule and the one that would carve out sections 301 and 232 goods from de minimis. The comment period for that rule closes March 24.
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti (R) urged the U.S. District Court of Middle Tennessee on Friday to deny NetChoice’s request for a preliminary injunction on a bill requiring age verification to access social media accounts following the decision in CCIA & NetChoice v. Uthmeier (see 2503170061). NetChoice responded Tuesday, asking the court to grant the preliminary injunction and enjoin the AG from enforcing HB-1891, as the ruling in the Uthmeier case “has no bearing here.”
Importer Houston Shutters defended its Section 1581(i) case at the Court of International Trade against the Commerce Department's failure to open a changed circumstances review of antidumping and countervailing duty determinations on wood moldings and millwork products from China. Filing a reply brief on March 12, Houston Shutters said jurisdiction doesn't require it to challenge Commerce's investigations, adding that Commerce itself uses the reviews to consider information that wasn't present during the investigation (Houston Shutters v. U.S., CIT # 24-00193).
The U.S. government's attempt to dismiss anti-forced labor group International Rights Advocates' (IRAdvocates) suit seeking to compel CBP to respond to a withhold release order petition on cocoa from Cote d'Ivoire is "premised on a significant mischaracterization of IRAdvocates' case," the group argued. Filing a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 13, IRAdvocates said its case is meant to compel a CBP response to the petition and not to secure an affirmative determination on the WRO, as the U.S. suggests (International Rights Advocates v. Kristi Noem, Fed. Cir. # 24-2316).