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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an errata in its Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. opinion. The court removed the word "not" from the sentence that originally read, "The government nonetheless argues that confidential business information cannot not be disclosed absent a statute or regulation authorizing a protective order." In the opinion, the appellate court said that CBP violated importer Royal Brush's due process rights by failing to provide it access to business confidential information in an Enforce and Protect Act proceeding (see 2307270038).

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.

Exporter Pirelli Tyre Co. will appeal a Court of International Trade decision finding that Pirelli failed to rebut the presumption of Chinese government control in the 2017-18 review of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. According to the notice of appeal, the exporter will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the opinion, the trade court said there isn't a different standard of proof for rebutting the presumption of government control in antidumping proceedings based on the degree of the foreign state's ownership stake in a respondent (see 2306120055) (Pirelli Tyre Co. v. United States, CIT # 20-00115).

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 4 notice granted importer Viking Drill & Tool's bid to dismiss its customs suit concerning its high-speed drill rods. The importer claimed in its summons that CBP illegally denied its protest, which said the rods of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7228.10.0030 were granted Section 232 steel and aluminum duty exclusions but were still assessed the duties (Viking Drill & Tool v. United States, CIT # 22-00058).

The Commerce Department improperly found that lemon juice exporter Louis Dreyfus Co. (LDC) was not affiliated with its primary fresh lemon supplier, leading to a de minimis rate for LDC, petitioner Ventura Coastal argued in its Aug. 3 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. The petitioner said Commerce discussed only LDC's potential reliance on the supplier, whose name was redacted in the brief, but failed to consider the supplier's reliance on LDC, misapplying the legal standard (Ventura Coastal v. U.S., CIT # 23-00009).

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).

A recently concluded case at the Court of International Trade was a serious contest between the power of the court and the finality of liquidation, customs lawyer Larry Friedman of Barnes Richardson said in an Aug. 2 blog post. The case at issue was Target v. U.S., in which Target attempted to reverse a reliquidation order on improperly liquidated ironing tables from China (see 2108160028). Reversing the order would "elevate the principle of finality" of liquidation over the power of the trade court, Judge Leo Gordon said in his July opinion (see 2307200049).