The Court of International Trade on April 4 upheld the Commerce Department's use of the invoice date rather than the contract date for the date of sale for respondents Kaptan Demir and Colakoglu Metalurji in the 2020-21 review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Turkey.

Court of International Trade Judge Gary Katzmann heard oral arguments April 1 in an Australian hot-rolled steel exporter’s challenge of an International Trade Commission's decision in an injury investigation to cumulate that exporter’s products with merchandise from other countries. The exporter argues that it also has invested $2.5 million into a U.S. manufacturing plant, so it has no incentive to injure its own domestic market (BlueScope Steel v. U.S., CIT # 22-00353).

Importer Blockstream Services USA on April 3 moved to set aside the Court of International Trade's April 1 order dismissing its tariff classification challenge for failure to prosecute (see 2404020013) (Blockstream Services USA v. U.S., CIT # 22-00101).

An exporter alleged April 2 that the Commerce Department omitted “critical” pieces of evidence from the administrative record the agency filed with the Court of International Trade in a case involving a 2023 anti-circumvention inquiry on solar cells from Vietnam (Red Sun Energy Long An Company Limited v. U.S., CIT # 23-00229).

The Court of International Trade on April 1 dismissed a customs suit from Blockstream Services USA for lack of prosecution. The suit was put in the customs case management calendar and not removed "at the expiration of the applicable period of time of removal." Blockstream Services brought the action to contest the classification of its cryptocurrency miners. CBP put the items under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8543.70.9960, dutiable at 2.6%, while the company argued for subheading 8471.50.0150, free of duty (Blockstream Services USA v. U.S., CIT # 22-00101).

The U.S. sought a default judgment April 2 in its case against Cherish Your Health Food Inc., a Chinese fresh garlic exporter that the government said hadn’t paid antidumping duties on five entries (U.S. v. Cherish Your Health Food Inc., CIT # 23-00230).

In an April 1 complaint contesting the final results of a 2021-2022 antidumping duty review, a Taiwanese exporter of steel nails said that the Commerce Department shouldn’t have used the financial records of an automotive parts exporter to calculate its own home market profit and selling expenses. The automotive parts exporter sold “entirely different types of products,” it said (Your Standing International Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00055).

A number of consolidated plaintiffs moved for summary judgment April 1 on a second issue in a case opposing a scope inquiry and affirmative circumvention finding regarding the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China (Shelter Forest International Acquisition v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00144).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: