The U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 30 granted exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co.'s application for more time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in an antidumping duty scope case. The high court sent the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit a letter notifying the court of the extension on Oct. 7 (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2181).

The U.S. on Oct 8, joined by defendant-intervenors Oct. 9, pushed back against an aluminum importer’s claim that the Commerce Department had wrongly looked at only two of five factors in a circumvention investigation to determine a product’s country of origin -- even finding the other three factors actually weighed against its ruling (Hanon Systems Alabama Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00013).

Importer Retractable Technologies on Oct. 8 asked the Court of International Trade to quash the government's motion seeking corporate testimony from the company in Retractable's suit on the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's 100% Section 301 tariff hike on needles and syringes. Retractable said an upcoming evidentiary hearing before the trade court will give the government the information it seeks and that reasonable time wasn't allowed for the company to respond to the subpoena (Retractable Technologies v. United States, CIT # 24-00185).

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

The U.S. swapped its principal counsel in a scope case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the antidumping duty order on butt-weld pipe fittings from China. Judges Timothy Dyk, Haldane Mayer and Jimmie Reyna granted the government's bid to replace senior trial counsel Meen Geu Oh with DOJ trial attorney Anne Delmare. Oh recently argued the case before the appellate court during oral argument held in April (see 2404050066) (Vandewater International v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1093).

An importer of aluminum extrusions from China -- one of those found by the Court of International Trade in June to have not evaded antidumping and countervailing duties (see 2407100048) -- asked the trade court to award it attorney’s fees, saying that, as a result of the litigation, it had gone out of business (H&E Home v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00337).

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 8 granted importer HH Associates US' voluntary dismissal of its customs case. The importer brought the suit in September 2023 to contest CBP's classification of its glassware imports under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7013.37.2090, dutiable at 22.5%. HH Associates said the goods should receive duty-free treatment under the same subheading. Counsel for the importer didn't respond to a request for comment (HH Associates US v. United States, CIT # 23-00200).

The U.S. brought a negligence case against a California-based solar cell importer Oct. 8 seeking $776,250.51 in unpaid duties and damages (U.S. v. Paul Bakhoum, CIT # 24-00188).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 7 issued its mandate in a case on the 2015-16 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from Taiwan (see 2408150020). In August, CAFC sustained the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against exporter Unicatch Industrial Co. for failing to submit adequate cost reconciliation information in the review. The court said Unicatch failed to act to the best of its ability in failing to correct the reconciliation information (Pro-Team Coil Nail Enterprise v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2241).

An airplane parts importer's products are just pieces of fabric, not airplane parts, the U.S. said Oct. 4 in support of its own cross-motion for summary judgment in a classification case (Honeywell International Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 17-00256).