The U.S. voluntarily dismissed its customs penalty appeal brought against surety firm American Home Assurance Co., according to an April 17 joint stipulation of voluntarily dismissal filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (United States v. American Home Assurance Co., Fed. Cir. # 24-1069).

The U.S. on April 16 requested the establishment of a USMCA dispute settlement panel to consider its rapid response labor complaint against a Mexican call center, marking only the second time the U.S. has requested that a panel be formed, according to an April 16 news release from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

Petitioners and an Indian freshwater shrimp exporter on April 16 both filed briefs opposing each other’s motions for judgment (see 2402080060). The petitioners said that the exporter was attempting to go against the Commerce Department's usual practice regarding interest expenses offsets, while the exporter claimed the petitioners had no evidence its home-market sales were destined for consumption elsewhere (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v U.S., CIT # 23-00202).

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 8-14:

International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

Chinese exporter Ninestar Corp. will submit a delisting petition with the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force to get off the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, the company told the Court of International Trade in an April 12 status report (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

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

In a third amended scheduling order, the Court of International Trade set a new Aug. 13 deadline for motions in a case that has been ongoing since 2022. The extension follows an amended complaint filed April 1 in which plaintiff Zoetis Services said that CBP had classified a “nearly identical” product to its own under a Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading it preferred (Zoetis Services LLC v. U.S., CIT #22-00056).

A petitioner in a review of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain chassis and subassemblies from China filed a consent motion April 10 to intervene in a case challenging that review brought by importer Pitts Enterprises. The Coalition of American Chassis Manufacturers said it intends to join the case on the side of Pitts to litigate the Commerce Department’s interpretation of the orders’ language (Pitts Enterprises, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00030).

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