Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

Changes to the de minimis statute, whether excluding China or changing the threshold, have gotten the most attention in Congress of any possible customs legislative change, but CBP says its 21st Century Customs Framework will not touch the issue.

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

Nothing in California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, AB-2273, restricts the content that businesses can provide to minors, and “any incidental effect the Act may have on businesses’ speech is justified by the State’s compelling interest in children’s welfare,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D), in a Friday opposition (docket 5:22-cv-08861) to NetChoice’s April motion for preliminary injunction (see 2304070041) in U.S.District Court for Northern California in San Jose.

DOJ said it recently discovered that it made inaccurate statements in a now-concluded case involving tobacco excise taxes for cigar wrappers, telling the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an April 21 motion that it said samples of the goods relied on in the case were from from a specific entry when they were not, and that it has only identified the source of six of the nine samples considered by the court (New Image Global v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 19-2444).

The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's refusal to adjust its threshold for differentiating between types of pasta in its duty calculations in the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on pasta from Italy. Respondent La Molisana had argued the agency's "breakpoint" of 12.5% protein content did not reflect the market reality, saying the true point separating premium from regular pasta was 13.5% protein content. In his April 24 opinion, Judge Richard Eaton said the company's evidence, while unrebutted, was not applicable industrywide, making it "unreliable and insufficient."

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

The Court of International Trade granted exporter Hyosung Heavy Industries Corp.'s request to dismiss its case against the Commerce Department's final results of the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large power transformers from South Korea. The exporter filed the suit on April 17, then moved to toss it under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which says the case can be voluntarily dismissed before the opposing party serves an answer. No reason was provided as to why Hyosung wanted to dismiss the case (Hyosung Heavy Industries Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00082).

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

Importer SXP Schulz Xtruded Products needed a protest to properly challenge CBP's failure to apply a Section 232 duty exclusion on four entries of its steel forged and turned bars, the Court of International Trade ruled. Dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves held that SXP could have filed for an extension of liquidation while it was waiting for the Commerce Department to correct the erroneous exclusion it issued or simply have filed a protest, which would have queued up jurisdiction under Section 1581(a).