The Court of International Trade should transfer interest in a case contesting the validity of the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs filed by Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing to Hitachi Astemo Americas, counsel for Hitachi Astemo Americas said in a motion for transfer of interest. The U.S. consented to the transfer. Both Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing's and Hitachi Astemo America's cases are under the massive Section 301 litigation. In July, Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing assigned all its interests in its case to Hitachi Astemo Americas, making it the real party in interest in Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing's case, the motion said (Hitachi Astemo Americas v. United States, CIT #20-00973).

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

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

The International Trade Commission should disqualify Daniel Pickard, chair of Buchanan Ingersoll's International Trade & National Security Practice Group, from participating as counsel for the petitioner to an International Trade Commission injury investigation given his ethical violations, counsel for Amstead Rail Co. said in an Oct. 11 letter.

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

Some exporters are still facing penalties for minor errors made in Automated Export System filings despite efforts by CBP and the Census Bureau to rein in those fines. Omari Wooden, Census’ assistant division chief for trade outreach and regulations, said those penalties, often referred to as “parking ticket violations,” have been an “ongoing issue” with CBP.

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

The Commerce Department cannot countervail glass purchases since both the Court of International Trade and Commerce have found that glass subsidies are not aluminum extrusions inputs, countervailing duty review respondent Guangzhou Jangho Curtain Wall System Engineering Co. argued in its Oct. 3 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Jangho also argued that CIT illegally allowed Commerce to make a post hoc rationalization as a basis for the finding to countervail glass subsidies (Taizhou United Imp. & Exp. Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. 22-2000).

The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 6 notice dismissed a customs case filed by Grobest Global Service over frozen tilapia fillets entered under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 0304.61.0000. The importer filed the case to contest CBP's assessment of 10% Section 301 duties on the fillets, arguing that the entries qualify for an exclusion from the duties under secondary subheading 9903.88.43. Grobest filed a notice of dismissal without an explanation (Grobest Global Service v. United States, CIT #20-03827).

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