No lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade.
Parties in a suit over the Commerce Department's expedited countervailing duty review on softwood lumber disagreed on whether the Court of International Trade should tell Commerce to exclude four Canadian exporters from the CVD order following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's order saying the agency has the authority to conduct the review. In a joint status report filed Aug. 7, the Canadian parties in the case, which include the Canadian government, said the court should tell Commerce to exclude the companies and tell CBP to stop collecting CVD cash deposits, while the petitioner said a joint status report is not the correct venue for the request (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. U.S., CIT # 19-00122).
The following lawsuit was filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of July 31 - Aug. 6:
CBP incorrectly denied protests seeking retroactive refunds of Section 301 duties for entries of furniture parts and boxes imported from China, importer Store Supply Warehouse said in an Aug. 4 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The protested items consisted of nine entries of hardware racks, three entries of jewelry boxes and 10 entries of showcase parts imported through the Port of Savannah (Store Supply Warehouse v. U.S., CIT # 23-00035).
Commerce did not have the right to institute an administrative review of an antidumping duty case while the underlying order was provisionally revoked, Goodluck India said during an Aug. 1 oral argument at the Court of International Trade. In response to questions from Judge Gary Katzmann, the central issue in the suit shifted from whether Commerce lawfully ordered liquidation at a rate vacated at the time of entry to whether the agency had the right to start a review of Goodluck while the AD order was provisionally revoked, pending appeal (Goodluck India v. U.S., CIT # 22-00024).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Supreme Court of the U.S., in an Aug. 1 order, granted the government's bid for an additional month to reply to importer PrimeSource Building Products' petition for a writ of certiorari on President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 duties onto steel and aluminum "derivatives." The government's reply will now be due Sept. 25, instead of Aug. 24 as originally planned. The government said its heavy case load warranted the delay.
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 3 order assigned a case challenging the results of the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on preserved mushrooms from the Netherlands to Judge M. Miller Baker. Petitioner Giorgio Foods filed the suit in June claiming that Commerce illegally picked Germany as the third-country comparison market since none of the reasons the agency gave for picking the nation were supported by substantial evidence (see 2307240018). The result of the investigation was a de minimis rate for respondent Prochamp and the company's exclusion from the AD order (Giorgio Foods v. U.S., CIT # 23-00133).
Importer Eteng Technologies Aug. 2 moved to dismiss its customs suit at the Court of International Trade related to its shipments of backpacking tents. The company challenged CBP's classification of the tents under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6302.22.90, dutiable at 8.8%, claiming that they should be classified under subheading 6306.22.10, free of duty. John Peterson, counsel for Eteng, said in an email that he realized the duties were not paid before the case was filed, which would have led the suit being tossed for lack of jurisdiction (Eteng Technologies v. United States, CIT # 22-00167).
The Commerce Department unlawfully relied on the Cohen's d test and incorrectly applied partial adverse facts to Indian exporter Garg Tube on remand in an antidumping duty case on welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India, Garg said in a July 31 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Garg Tube Export v. U.S., CIT # 21-00169).