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

The U.S. and plaintiff Tokyo Ohka Kogyo America filed April 10 a stipulated judgment for a 2017 case involving a dispute over the classification of certain photoresists (Toykyo Ohka Kogyo America v. United States, CIT # 17-00070).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 11 invited the Court of International Trade to respond to the government's petition for writ of mandamus regarding the trade court's recent decision finding the commission's practice of automatically redacting questionnaire responses to be unlawful (see 2503270057). In a per curiam order, CAFC invited Judge Stephen Vaden, the author of the opinion, to respond no later than April 22. The court said any reply in support of the petition is due "no later than seven days after the last-filed response." The U.S. filed its mandamus bid last week, asking the appellate court to order the trade court to retain the commission's designation of information as business proprietary information unless the submitting party consents to disclosure (In re United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-127).

Petitioner Nucor filed an opening brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 7 challenging a trade court ruling that favored exporter KG Dongbu Steel, the mandatory respondent in a 2019 countervailing duty administrative review on corrosion-resistant steel products from Korea. It said the Commerce Department had “plainly satisfied” the legal standard for changing its position from one review to another (Nucor Corp. v. KG Dongbu Steel Co., Fed. Cir. # 25-1411).

The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices April 14 on AD/CVD proceedings:

CBP improperly declined to accept the proper valuation of various iron and steel products imported by NOA Brands America, the importer argued in an April 10 complaint at the Court of International Trade (NOA Brands America v. United States, CIT # 23-00109).

In April 8 oral argument involving a large number of parties, Court of International Trade Judge Jane Restani said she thinks she knows how she’ll rule on a petitioner’s Tier 2 price benchmark question about whether Kazakh natural gas export prices are available to Russian purchasers (Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00239).

Disagreeing with exporter BASF, the U.S. argued April 7 that the exporter’s beta-carotene product Betatene had been properly classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule because it was used as a specific -- not general -- food additive, and its additives were used for more than just stable transportation or preservation (BASF Corporation v. United States, CIT Consol. # 12-00422).

The U.S. and importer Vecoplan filed a stipulated judgment at the Court of International Trade granting duty-free treatment to the importer's grinding machines. CBP initially classified the entries, which are described as "industrial size reduction machines that operate with a single shaft rotor with cutting inserts," under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8479.89.94. This subheading covers certain machines and mechanical appliances with individual functions and comes with a 2.5% duty rate. The parties agreed to classify the goods under duty-free subheading 8479.82.00, which covers "[m]ixing, kneading, crushing, grinding, screening, sifting, homogenizing, emulsifying or stirring machines" (Vecoplan v. United States, CIT # 20-00141).

Lumber exporter Fontaine asked the Court of International Trade to order the Commerce Department to issue a Timken notice "setting Fontaine's cash deposit rate at 0.00%," reiterating the agency's intent to exclude the company from the countervailing duty order on softwood lumber from Canada and directing CBP to refund Fontaine's CVD cash deposits (Fontaine v. United States, CIT # 19-00154).