The Court of International Trade on Dec. 1 stayed for 60 days a case on the Commerce Department's refusal to grant Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions so the parties can conclude the voluntary remand process and "effectuate" Commerce's remand results. The agency changed course last year, granting the exclusions for importer Mirror Metals after finding that the relevant steel article could not be made at a sufficient level in the U.S. (see 2204190016) (Mirror Metals v. United States, CIT # 21-00144).
Japanese exporter Nippon Steel Corp. failed to exhaust its claim that Section 232 duties weren't included in the prices it charged to its unrelated U.S. buyers in a trio of the exporter's cases against three antidumping reviews of hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan, AD petitioner Nucor Corp. argued. Filing a supplemental brief to the Court of International Trade on Dec. 1, Nucor said that Nippon Steel failed to raise the argument in any of the three reviews and failed to plead the claim "with sufficiency," thereby waiving the argument (Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT # 21-00533, 22-00183, 23-00112).
The Commerce Department shouldn't have granted a de minimis antidumping duty rate to a respondent in the AD investigation on preserved mushrooms from the Netherlands, the domestic petitioner for the investigation argued in a motion for judgment filed at the Court of International Trade Nov. 21 (Giorgio Foods v. U.S., CIT # 23-00133).
Chinese exporter Ninestar Corp. is likely to show that the Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over the company's challenge to its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, the trade court ruled in a Nov. 30 opinion.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in a text-only order ordered parties in a suit on the antidumping duty investigation on aluminum foil from Turkey to respond to the government's request for a partial remand regarding the Commerce Department's duty drawback adjustment for respondent Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret. The U.S. said it wants another chance to consider or further explain the "ratio used for the duty drawback adjustment" in the case after considering Assan's arguments (see 2311270064) (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 21-00616).
The International Trade Commission now seeks comments by Dec. 6 on an amended complaint filed by Optimum Communications Services seeking a general exclusion order banning imports of all passive network equipment that infringe on its patents, according to a Nov. 28 notice from the ITC. The amended complaint now lists Hangzhou Daytai Network Technologies as a respondent in the case, instead of Hangzhou Fullwell Optoelectronic Equipment.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 22 and Nov. 28 granted voluntary motions to dismiss six customs cases. One case, brought by importer POSCO International America Corp., challenged CBP's denial of its protest claiming an error in how the agency appraised and liquidated one of its entries (POSCO International America Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00421).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of Nov. 6-12, 13-19 and 20-26: