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

Importer MTD Products filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade June 5 claiming its spark-ignition reciprocating or rotary internal combustion piston engines from China were improperly denied Section 301 exclusions by CBP (MTD Products v. U.S., CIT # 22-00174).

A company that imports air fryers brought a complaint to the Court of International Trade on June 5, arguing that its fryer are not “cooking stoves, ranges or ovens” but rather fall under the relevant “other” category (Sensio Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00152).

The Court of International Trade on June 5 amended a decision it issued last week rejecting the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against an exporter doing business as Supermel in the antidumping duty investigation on raw honey from Brazil (see 2405310043) (Apiario Diamante Comercial Exportadora Ltda. v. United States, CIT # 22-00185).

On remand, the International Trade Commission failed to comply with the court's order and cherry-picked evidence to maintain its previous ruling that fertilizer imports had injured local producers, a Moroccan phosphate fertilizer exporter said May 30 to the Court of International Trade (OCP v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00219).

The Court of International Trade on May 30 denied the government's out of time motion to extend its time to respond to importer Atlas Power's requests for admissions for all discovery in a customs suit. Judge Stephen Vaden said it denied the motion since relief is available under CIT Rule 36, which "includes a mechanism for a party to request that an admission be withdrawn or amended" (Atlas Power v. U.S., CIT # 23-00084).

Antidumping duty respondent Salzgitter Mannesmann Grobblech told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a reply brief last week that the U.S. and petitioners Nucor Corp. and SSAB Enterprises failed to adequately defend the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against the respondent in the AD investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Germany (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1219).

The Court of International Trade on June 4 dismissed a customs classification suit on kids' erasable e-writing tablets from China following importer Kent Displays' notice of dismissal. The notice came after the importer lost a similar case at the trade court, which saw the government prevail in claiming that the tablets fit under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8543, which has a 2.6% duty rate (see 2405090037). In the separate case, Kent was freed from having to pay Section 301 duties on its imports since they didn't cover the tablets at the time of entry (Kent Displays v. United States, CIT # 20-03803).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last week set an expedited briefing schedule in TikTok's lawsuit against the bill that could either ban the app in the U.S. or force a sale of the social media company. The schedule says the briefs for TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, and for a group of content creators on the app are due June 20. The government's reply is due July 26, and the final reply briefs for the app and creators is due Aug. 15 (TikTok v. Merrick B. Garland, D.C. Cir. # 24-1113).

U.S. importer Water Pik will avoid Section 301 duties on its electromechanical oral hygiene devices from China after arguing that CBP should have classified them under a different Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading (Water Pik v. United States, CIT # 23-00083).