The Court of International Trade on Oct. 8 granted importer HH Associates US' voluntary dismissal of its customs case. The importer brought the suit in September 2023 to contest CBP's classification of its glassware imports under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7013.37.2090, dutiable at 22.5%. HH Associates said the goods should receive duty-free treatment under the same subheading. Counsel for the importer didn't respond to a request for comment (HH Associates US v. United States, CIT # 23-00200).

The U.S. swapped its principal counsel in a scope case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the antidumping duty order on butt-weld pipe fittings from China. Judges Timothy Dyk, Haldane Mayer and Jimmie Reyna granted the government's bid to replace senior trial counsel Meen Geu Oh with DOJ trial attorney Anne Delmare. Oh recently argued the case before the appellate court during oral argument held in April (see 2404050066) (Vandewater International v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1093).

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 7 issued its mandate in a case on the 2015-16 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from Taiwan (see 2408150020). In August, CAFC sustained the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against exporter Unicatch Industrial Co. for failing to submit adequate cost reconciliation information in the review. The court said Unicatch failed to act to the best of its ability in failing to correct the reconciliation information (Pro-Team Coil Nail Enterprise v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2241).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 4 issued its mandate in a case on the president's ability to make trade-restrictive modifications to Section 201 safeguards. In August, the court partially reconsidered its initial decision finding that the president can make such adjustments (see 2408130019). The court conducted a de novo review of the applicable statute in its decision following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which said courts can't defer to agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes. The appellate court issued its mandate in the case after the Solar Energy Industries Association didn't appeal the matter to the Supreme Court (Solar Energy Industries Association v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1392).

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 7 set a 14-day deadline for the U.S. to file for a voluntary remand in an Enforce and Protect Act case originally brought by exporter Kingtom Aluminio. The parties in a recent joint status report told the court to lift the stay on the case and that the government intends to file a voluntary remand motion (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00072).

Plaintiffs in a case regarding the countervailability of three debt-to-equity swaps filed a brief Oct. 7 in support of the Commerce Department’s reluctant reversal on remand (see 2407030073). The department found those swaps weren't countervailable, because it hadn't countervailed them in three prior reviews either (KG Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00047).

An airplane parts importer's products are just pieces of fabric, not airplane parts, the U.S. said Oct. 4 in support of its own cross-motion for summary judgment in a classification case (Honeywell International Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 17-00256).

Importers led by Tenaris Bay City sent comments to the Court of International Trade last week opposing the International Trade Commission's separate decisions to cumulate both Russian and South Korean oil country tubular goods with goods from Argentina and Mexico. Tenaris Bay argued that the ITC improperly interpreted the statute in defining the phrase "compete with," which "uses the present tense and thus denotes" that the goods in question must compete with the like product during the "months leading up to and including vote day" (Tenaris Bay City v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00344).

Two 2021 cases arguing importers' products should have been excluded from Section 301 duties were dismissed by their Houston-based law firm Oct. 1 (Anatolia Tile & Stone, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00245; Bray International v. U.S., CIT # 21-00332).