The Court of International Trade reassigned five customs cases brought by Continental Automotive Systems from Judge Timothy Stanceu to Judge Jane Restani, in a Dec. 28 order signed by Judge Mark Barnett. Originally filed in 2017 and 2018, the cases concern the proper Harmonized Tariff Schedule classification of Continental's probe element of nitric oxide sensors -- a mass-produced element of NOx sensors, designed for use in consumer passenger vehicles and trucks. Four of the five were placed under a test case. The Department of Justice filed its cross motion for summary judgment Dec. 22 (Continental Automotive Systems v. U.S., CIT #18-00026). The order didn't give a reason for the reassignment.

Antidumping duty petitioner and defendant-appellant Welspun Tubular filed an unopposed motion Dec. 28 for an extension of time to request a full-court rehearing on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision that the Commerce Department can no longer make a particular market situation adjustment to an AD respondent's cost of production in a sales-below-cost test for the purposes of calculating normal value (see 2112100039). The ruling affirmed a host of Court of International Trade opinions that said the PMS adjustment is reserved solely for constructed value. Petitions for en banc rehearings in the case are due Jan. 9, and Welspun is requesting that this deadline be pushed to Feb. 8 (Hyundai Steel v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-1748).

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.

The Federal Maritime Commission issued three new policy statements this week to provide the shipping industry more guidance on its complaint process and clarify how it will address cases of carrier retaliation. The shipper-friendly policy statements, originally recommended by Commissioner Rebecca Dye in July (see 2107290021), describe how the FMC defines who can allege complaints, how the commission approaches reparations for attorney fees and a broad outline of who can bring forward a retaliation complaint.

Counsel for pencil importer Royal Brush Manufacturing resubmitted its entry of appearance at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Dec. 23, attempting to bring its filing in line with court rules. The appellate court previously found that the notice was not in compliance with court rules since the filing party, Ronald Oleynik of Holland & Knight, didn't have an electronic filing account (see 2112160069). In the updated filing, Steven Gordon was listed as principal counsel for Royal Brush (Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1226).

The Federal Maritime Commission issued three new policy statements this week to provide the shipping industry more guidance on its complaint process and clarify how it will address cases of carrier retaliation. The shipper-friendly policy statements, originally recommended by Commissioner Rebecca Dye in July (see 2107290021), describe how the FMC defines who can allege complaints, how the commission approaches reparations for attorney fees and a broad outline of who can bring forward a retaliation complaint.

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

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 20-26:

The American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring filed two complaints at the Court of International Trade, one contesting the Commerce Department's final results in an antidumping duty review of MLWF from China and in a countervailing duty review of MLWF from China. The U.S. industry group said that Commerce erred in the AD review by deviating from its expected method when finding the final dumping margin for non-selected separate rate companies and that it erred in the CVD review by failing to properly construct benchmarks for veneers, fiberboard and paint, primer and stain (American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring v. U.S., CIT #21-00595) (American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring v. U.S., CIT #21-00596).

The International Trade Commission should issue its “standard limited exclusion order” (LEO) banning from U.S. import all Google smart speakers and other infringing products “within the scope of the investigation” that found Google guilty of Tariff Act Section 337 violations, said Sonos in redacted Dec. 10 comments posted Wednesday in public docket 337-TA-1191. The ITC should “explicitly identify and carve out” from the import ban any Google products and redesigns not found to have infringed five Sonos multiroom audio patents, said Google’s reply.