The Commerce Department wrongly determined in a scope ruling that an importer's pencils hadn’t been substantially transformed in the Philippines solely because a Chinese-origin input, wooden slats, were custom-manufactured for use in pencil production, that importer said in a motion for judgment Nov. 8 (School Specialty v. U.S., CIT # 24-00098).

The Commerce Department erred in finding that the South Korean government's provision of electricity below cost was de facto specific in the 2022 review of the countervailing duty order on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea, exporter Hyundai Steel Co. argued in a Nov. 12 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Hyundai added that Commerce violated the statute on specificity in CVD cases in relying on the "original electricity consumption data" for its de facto specificity finding (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00190).

In a Nov. 8 cross-motion for summary judgment in a consolidated case that first began in 2015, the U.S. asked the Court of International Trade to rule big box store Target’s merchandise -- LED candles, string lights, table lights, nightlights, path lights and lanterns-- as “lamps” under Harmonized Tariff Schedule Chapter 94 instead of “electrical luminescent lights” under Chapter 85 (Target General Merchandise v. United States, CIT Consol. # 15-00069).

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

Mediation at the Court of International Trade resulted in a settlement of all issues in importer Valbruna Slater Stainless' suit on the Commerce Department's denials of its Section 232 steel tariff exclusion requests. Judge Leo Gordon served as mediator and told the court on Nov. 12 that the mediation settled the case (Valbruna Slater Stainless v. United States, CIT # 21-00027).

After the Commerce Department made no changes to the results of a 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Chinese solar cells (see 2408300020) after a remand order (see 2405090045), importers and exporters said that the department had failed to follow the trade court’s instructions -- continuing to justify use of a second surrogate to value an input with the argument that it needed that input reported in something other than kilograms even though it itself ordered respondents to report that way (Jinko Solar Import and Export Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00219).

CBP and an importer reached a settlement in four customs cases on the classification of the company's photoresists. The goods were classified by CBP under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 3707.90.32, covering certain chemical preparations for photographic uses, dutiable at 6.5%. The agency agreed to liquidate the entries as sensitizing emulsions under subheading 3707.10.00, dutiable at 3%. The cases were brought by Tokyo Ohka Kogyo America, formerly known as Ohka America, and cover hundreds of the company's entries (Ohka America v. U.S., CIT #s 04-00583, 05-00292) (Tokyo Ohka Kogyo America v. U.S., CIT #s 10-00243, 17-00067).

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York this month denied a request from Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei Technologies Co. to help the company obtain access to certain discovery documents that are restricted by the Bureau of Industry and Security. Judge Cheryl Pollak said that while DOJ marked hundreds of thousands of documents at a lower level of classification than BIS, which would give Huawei greater access to the records, the documents are "still subject to further review by BIS" (United States v. Huawei Technologies, E.D.N.Y. # 18-00457).

Tomato exporters led by NS Brands failed to show good cause to untimely intervene in a case on the Commerce Department's 1996 antidumping duty investigation on Mexican tomatoes, petitioner The Florida Tomato Exchange argued on Nov. 8. The petitioner said NS Brands knew when the case started that the parties were challenging Commerce's failure to continue the proceeding and "has shown no reason it could not have timely intervened in this proceeding" (Bioparques de Occidente v. United States, CIT Consol. # 19-00204).

After the Court of International Trade ruled that a Section 301 exclusion for side protective attachments for trucks is a principal use provision, not an eo nomine one (see 2410070030), a vehicle accessories importer asked CIT Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves on Nov. 6 to either reconsider or let it bring an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Keystone Automotive Operations v. U.S., CIT # 21-00215).