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

A company that imports air fryers brought a complaint to the Court of International Trade on June 5, arguing that its fryer are not “cooking stoves, ranges or ovens” but rather fall under the relevant “other” category (Sensio Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00152).

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

Importer MTD Products filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade June 5 claiming its spark-ignition reciprocating or rotary internal combustion piston engines from China were improperly denied Section 301 exclusions by CBP (MTD Products v. U.S., CIT # 22-00174).

The Court of International Trade on May 30 denied the government's out of time motion to extend its time to respond to importer Atlas Power's requests for admissions for all discovery in a customs suit. Judge Stephen Vaden said it denied the motion since relief is available under CIT Rule 36, which "includes a mechanism for a party to request that an admission be withdrawn or amended" (Atlas Power v. U.S., CIT # 23-00084).

On remand, the International Trade Commission failed to comply with the court's order and cherry-picked evidence to maintain its previous ruling that fertilizer imports had injured local producers, a Moroccan phosphate fertilizer exporter said May 30 to the Court of International Trade (OCP v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00219).

Antidumping duty respondent Salzgitter Mannesmann Grobblech told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a reply brief last week that the U.S. and petitioners Nucor Corp. and SSAB Enterprises failed to adequately defend the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against the respondent in the AD investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Germany (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1219).

The Court of International Trade on June 5 amended a decision it issued last week rejecting the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against an exporter doing business as Supermel in the antidumping duty investigation on raw honey from Brazil (see 2405310043) (Apiario Diamante Comercial Exportadora Ltda. v. United States, CIT # 22-00185).

The Commerce Department wrongly attributed two unrelated entities to an Indian glycine exporter and hit it with adverse facts available for not providing those two companies’ financial information, the exporter said June 3. It also alleged that the department failed to notify it of any deficiencies in its responses (Kumar Industries v. U.S., CIT # 23-00263).

Antidumping petitioner Edsal Manufacturing Co. filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on June 4 contesting the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale from India. Edsal said Commerce erred in accepting untimely information from exporter Triune Technofab regarding the calculation of the exporter's constructed value profit (Edsal Manufacturing Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00087).