The government has “inexcusably failed to provide substantive responses and/or produce any documents whatsoever,” gun manufacturer Glock said in a June 20 motion asking the Court of International Trade to compel the U.S. to produce the information the importer sought in its first round of discovery (Glock v. U.S., CIT # 23-00046).

An importer on June 20 accused CBP of placing “wholly unrelated” lab tests on the record to support an evasion decision and illegally refusing to consider the scope ruling that importer sought from the Commerce Department. As a result, it said, the CBP’s final determination was unlawful (Vanguard Trading Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00253).

An importer of tubing for perforating guns said June 21 that its refund request was wrongly denied after CBP initially accepted its 2020 request for exclusion from Section 232 tariffs. The denial occurred because CBP claimed that the products’ Harmonized Tariff Schedule classification was wrong, even though the agency had said otherwise on three separate occasions, including at liquidation, it said (G&H Diversified Manufacturing v. U.S., CIT # 22-00130).

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

A Thai truck wheel exporter, which brought a case against the Commerce Department last year regarding the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on Chinese truck wheels, said June 18 that petitioners were just trying to challenge the Commerce Department’s “misinterpretation of the plain language of the scope” (Asia Wheel Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00143).

Exporters Guizhou Tyre Co. and Aeolus Tyre Co. said in a June 20 reply brief that the U.S. ignored the manner in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said presumptions operate under the Federal Rules of Evidence (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2163).

Importer Target General Merchandise moved for summary judgment in a customs case on its LED lamps, breaking down its case into two tracks -- one regarding its goods imported in 2014 and the other on its imports entered in 2018 (Target General Merchandise v. United States, CIT # 15-00069).

Although the Court of International Trade rejected the International Trade Commission’s analysis in its affirmative injury determination regarding boxed mattresses from various Asian countries as “mathematical obfuscation and statistical chicanery,” it didn’t remand like it should have, an exporter told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 21 (CVB, Inc. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1504).

In a June 20 post-oral argument submission, a Turkish rebar exporter said the government is “misrepresenting" its argument by saying the exporter is claiming that any industry in Turkey can receive an industry registry certificate (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #23-00131).

Defending the Commerce Department’s continued denial on remand of a canned foods importer’s Section 232 requests (see 2404020047), the U.S. said that the importer can submit new requests if domestic producers really can’t meet that importer’s needs (Seneca Foods Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00243).