Answering a question put forth to both parties by the Court of International Trade (see 2405230059), the U.S. said June 12 that CBP had made only a ministerial decision to liquidate a tire importer’s entries after being told to do so by the Commerce Department; and ministerial decisions, it argued, are not protestable and thus can't be litigated under 28 U.S.C. 1581(a) (Acquisition 362 v. U.S., CIT # 24-00011).

The Court of International Trade in a confidential June 17 order sustained CBP's remand results in an aluminum extrusions antidumping and countervailing duty evasion case in which the agency dropped its finding that Global Aluminum and importer Hialeah Aluminum Supply evaded the order (see 2301100033) (H&E Home v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00337).

The Court of International Trade in a confidential decision June 13 sustained CBP's negative evasion finding regarding Dominican company Kingtom Aluminio. Enforce and Protect Act petitioner Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee brought suit, arguing that CBP's Office of Regulations and Rulings wrongly overturned an evasion finding initially made by CBP's Trade Remedy and Law Enforcement Directorate (see 2309220032). The petitioner claimed that TRLED was right to use adverse inferences against Kingtom after the company interfered with CBP's ability to verify information submitted by the company. The court hasn't given any indication of when it will make the decision public (Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee v. U.S., CIT # 22-00236).

The Court of International Trade in a confidential June 13 order sustained the Commerce Department's final results of the third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia. Judge Richard Eaton gave the parties until June 20 to review the decision. AD petitioner U.S. Steel Corp. brought the case to contest Commerce's finding that exporter BlueScope Steel (AIS) didn't reimburse its U.S. affiliate for AD on the relevant imports (see 2206080032) (U.S. Steel v. U.S., CIT # 21-00528).

The Court of International Trade on June 12 granted two companies' motions for voluntary dismissal in an antidumping and countervailing duty injury case and a customs case. One case, brought by exporter Adisseo Espana, contested the International Trade Commission's final determination finding that methionine from Spain and Japan injured the U.S. industry. The other, brought by importer AVA Industries, contested CBP's classification of multimedia players without screens. Neither company commented on the reasons for the dismissals (Adisseo Espana v. United States, CIT # 21-00562) (AVA Enterprises v. United States, CIT # 20-00123).

Two Thai exporters said in a motion for judgment June 13 that the Commerce Department wrongly determined they were circumventing an antidumping duty order on solar panels from China -- even though between three and four of the five relevant factors it analyzed weighed against a circumvention finding (Canadian Solar International Limited v. U.S., CIT # 23-00222).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 13 allowed the Canadian government and a group of eight Canadian lumber exporters to appear as amici curiae in an appeal of the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test to detect "masked" dumping. Judge Kara Stoll granted the motion (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1556).

Replying to an aircraft parts importer’s motion for judgment (see 2403110059) in a case that began in 2017, the government said that the importer's products are raw materials, not parts (Honeywell International Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 17-00256).

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

Importer Diamond Tools Technology voluntarily dismissed its appeal of an Enforce and Protect Act case on diamond sawblades at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The importer took to the appellate court after its application for attorney's fees was rejected by the Court of International Trade (see 2307310021) (Diamond Tools Technology v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1882).