The U.S. and Indian frozen shrimp exporter Megaa Moda supported March 7 the Commerce Department’s results on remand of an antidumping duty administrative review (see 2411270055). Finding that Megaa Moda knew certain of its home market sales would be exported required affirmative evidence that the record lacked, they said (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00202).
Associations' views diverged widely on the wisdom of codifying a modified Type 86 process and tweaking the clear-from-the-manifest process for de minimis entries. Groups also disagreed on CBP's proposals for what new data should be submitted. The agency received 95 comments on its proposal, though dozens were from individuals and didn't make substantive suggestions. Some associations and companies addressed both this proposed rule and the one that would carve out sections 301 and 232 goods from de minimis. The comment period for that rule closes March 24.
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti (R) urged the U.S. District Court of Middle Tennessee on Friday to deny NetChoice’s request for a preliminary injunction on a bill requiring age verification to access social media accounts following the decision in CCIA & NetChoice v. Uthmeier (see 2503170061). NetChoice responded Tuesday, asking the court to grant the preliminary injunction and enjoin the AG from enforcing HB-1891, as the ruling in the Uthmeier case “has no bearing here.”
Importer Houston Shutters defended its Section 1581(i) case at the Court of International Trade against the Commerce Department's failure to open a changed circumstances review of antidumping and countervailing duty determinations on wood moldings and millwork products from China. Filing a reply brief on March 12, Houston Shutters said jurisdiction doesn't require it to challenge Commerce's investigations, adding that Commerce itself uses the reviews to consider information that wasn't present during the investigation (Houston Shutters v. U.S., CIT # 24-00193).
The U.S. government's attempt to dismiss anti-forced labor group International Rights Advocates' (IRAdvocates) suit seeking to compel CBP to respond to a withhold release order petition on cocoa from Cote d'Ivoire is "premised on a significant mischaracterization of IRAdvocates' case," the group argued. Filing a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 13, IRAdvocates said its case is meant to compel a CBP response to the petition and not to secure an affirmative determination on the WRO, as the U.S. suggests (International Rights Advocates v. Kristi Noem, Fed. Cir. # 24-2316).
A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will "substantially upend" the International Trade Commission's established approach to determining whether a company's U.S. operations are part of the domestic industry, lawyers from Ropes & Gray said.
The U.S. agreed to apply Section 232 steel tariff exclusions to 13 of importer California Steel Industries' entries. Filing a stipulated judgment at the Court of International Trade on March 11, California Steel and the government said they settled all issues in the case, additionally noting that Section 232 duties applied to one of the importer's entries will be "final and non-protestable" (California Steel Industries v. United States, CIT # 21-00015).
Importer JBF Bahrain and the U.S. are progressing toward a settlement of the importer's customs case on CBP's denial of duty-free treatment under the U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement for the company's polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film imports. Filing a joint status report on March 12 at the Court of International Trade, JBF said it has "resolved technical issues and provided document production to the defendant," while the U.S., through CBP, continues to examine "representative samples of the raw materials, intermediate product, and imported product" (JBF Bahrain v. United States, CIT # 23-00067).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Masterank America dropped its customs case at the Court of International Trade, filing a notice of dismissal on March 10. The importer brought its suit in December 2024 to contest CBP's determination that its paraffin wax of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2712.20.0000, dutiable at 7.5%, has a country of origin of China. Masterank argued that the country of origin should be Taiwan. Counsel for the importer didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (Masterank America v. United States, CIT # 24-00235).