The Court of International Trade on Aug. 16 reassigned an antidumping duty scope case on Chinese garlic from Judge Gary Katzmann to Judge M. Miller Baker. Importer Marcatus QED filed suit, claiming the Commerce Department erred in finding that the company's shipments of preserved garlic in brine fell within the scope of the AD order on fresh garlic from China (see 2406140039). Baker already has been assigned at least one other case related to the scope of antidumping duties on Chinese garlic (see 2408090042) (Marcatus QED v. U.S., CIT # 24-00091).

The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Aug. 7-16 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The U.S. acknowledged on Aug. 16 that CBP mistakenly liquidated certain tire entries subject to an injunction from the Court of International Trade. Filing a status report, the government said the Commerce Department "took corrective action," telling CBP to "promptly return to unliquidated status any entries that had been inadvertently liquidated in violation of the Court’s order" (Titan Tire Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00233).

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

Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) will appeal its three separate cases filed at the Court of International Trade regarding the sunset review of an antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Turkey (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT #'s 22-00349, -00350, -00351).

The U.S. acknowledged on Aug. 16 that CBP mistakenly liquidated certain tire entries subject to an injunction from the Court of International Trade. Filing a status report, the government said the Commerce Department "took corrective action," telling CBP to "promptly return to unliquidated status any entries that had been inadvertently liquidated in violation of the Court’s order" (Titan Tire Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00233).

Last week, the Court of International Trade said anti-forced labor advocacy group International Rights Advocates (IRAdvocates) didn't have standing to challenge CBP's inaction in responding to a petition to ban cocoa from Cote d'Ivoire, alleging that it's harvested by child labor (see 2408080049). Speaking with Trade Law Daily, Terrence Collingsworth, counsel for IRAdvocates, said he intends to appeal the decision but, should that fail, he is ready to bring alternative plaintiffs before the court who may more clearly establish standing.

Last week, the Court of International Trade said anti-forced labor advocacy group International Rights Advocates (IRAdvocates) didn't have standing to challenge CBP's inaction in responding to a petition to ban cocoa from Cote d'Ivoire, alleging that it's harvested by child labor (see 2408080049). Terrence Collingsworth, counsel for IRAdvocates, told us he intends to appeal the decision but, should that fail, he is ready to bring alternative plaintiffs before the court who may more clearly establish standing.

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