NetJets Aviation, a commercial airline operator, filed an amended complaint on Aug. 11 at the Court of International Trade, dropping its claim under Section 1581(i) after the Department of Justice moved to partially dismiss the case. Following litigation on the issue (see 2108110027), NJA simply moved forward and dropped the claim, succumbing to DOJ's view of the proper jurisdictional home for the case. Judge Claire Kelly also issued an order in the case reserving its decision on the jurisdiction questions in the case but extending the deadline for the U.S. to respond to the amended complaint until Aug. 31. The case is over whether NJA has to issue customs user fees to its passengers (NetJets Aviation, Inc. v. U.S., CIT #21-00142).

Printed circuit board assembly importer Triumph Engine Control Systems moved to overturn the dismissal of four of its cases issued by the Court of International Trade in an Aug. 9 filing. Claiming that it clears the standard for reversing dismissals due to lack of prosecution set in the Supreme Court case Pioneer Inv. Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, the importer requested an extension of the time to remain on the Customs Case Management Calendar (Triumph Engine Control Systems, LLC v. U.S., CIT #19-00108, #19-00109, #19-00110, #19-00130).

Commercial airline operator NetJets Aviation's request for leave to reassert Section 1581(i) jurisdiction in a customs challenge should jurisdiction under Section 1581(a) be unavailable should be denied, the Department of Justice said in Aug. 10 comments at the Court of International Trade. Further responding to its motion to partially dismiss NJA's case, DOJ said that the court lacks jurisdiction for the spat under Section 1581(i) and that NJA fails to even allege that this jurisdiction is available in its response (NetJets Aviation, Inc. v. U.S., CIT #21-00142).

Plaintiffs in an antidumping case in the Court of International Trade, led by Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, signed off on the Commerce Department's remand results in Aug. 11 comments, finding them in accordance with the CIT's instructions. The case stems from an antidumping administrative review on multilayered wood flooring from China. Following multiple court decisions and remand results (see 2107130080), Fine Furniture's case was stayed pending the results of a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision which eventually found that Fine Furniture is not subject to the antidumping duty order. Since the mandatory respondents in the underlying AD order received de minimis duty rates in Commerce's final determination, Fine Furniture was removed from the review. This led to the AD rate for all separate rate respondents falling to zero percent (Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, et al. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #14-00135).

The defendant-intervenor in an antidumping duty case, the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, backed the Commerce Department's motion for voluntary remand since court precedent supports granting remands to correct issues in underlying determinations for the courts to review. Making its case in an Aug. 9 response, the union said that preventing Commerce from performing the review laid out in the remand would "serve no legitimate purpose." In another filing, the union opposed the case's mandatory respondent from intervening in the case due to an untimely bid (Pirelli Tyre Co., Ltd. et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00115).

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

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied, in part, and declared moot, in part, a Michigan-based car importer's challenge to two titling requirements imposed by the state of Ohio, in an Aug. 3 opinion. Judge Edmund Sargus found the challenge to a bond release letter requirement to be moot given the requirement was already lifted and that the claim against in-state inspection requirements fails since the regulation does not discriminate against out-of-state interests.

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

The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut denied Arif Durrani's "frivolous" motion to vacate his 34-year-old conviction and sentence, in an Aug. 3 order. Durrani was convicted in 1987 of violating the Arms Export Control Act by shipping Hawk missile parts to Iran without a license. The issues raised in his September 2020 motion to vacate "have been exhaustively addressed -- and rejected -- in prior motions brought by Durrani," the court said. Durrani also has served his prison sentence. "Moreover, as the government notes, to the extent Durrani’s petition is construed as one under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, it necessarily fails because Durrani is no longer 'in custody' as required under the statute," the order said (Arif Durrani v. United States, D. Conn. #20-01373).

The Commerce Department correctly relied on data from Xeneta XS over Maersk Line when calculating the respondent's surrogate ocean freight expenses in an antidumping duty review, the Court of International Trade said in an Aug. 10 opinion. Judge Claire Kelly sustained the remand results after twice remanding them, finding substantial evidence backing the second redetermination.