The Court of International Trade dismissed two customs cases, one brought by Meijer Distribution and one by Printing Textiles, for failure to prosecute. Both were put on the customs case management calendar but were not removed before the expiration of the "applicable period of time of removal." Meijer's case concerned whether its hand soap entries of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 3401.30.50 were properly hit with Section 301 tariffs (see 2303130060). Meanwhile, the case from Printing Textiles, doing business as Berger Textiles, was on whether its coated fabric imports were properly subject to antidumping duties (see 2303150073). Neither attorney for either company responded to our requests for comment (Meijer Distribution v. United States, CIT # 23-00061) (Printing Textiles v. United States, CIT # 23-00062).

Rebar exporter Kaptan Demir argued that the U.S. failed to defend the Commerce Department's position in the 2021 countervailing duty review on steel concrete rebar from Turkey that exemptions from Turkey's Banking and Insurance Transactions Tax (BITT) are de jure specific. Filing a reply brief at the Court of International Trade on March 30, Kaptan said the government's position that Kaptan failed to provide evidence that every Turkish company is eligible for the exemption is "factually incorrect" (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #24-00096).

The U.S. on April 1 defended the Commerce Department’s determination that -- in a review of German-origin thermal paper -- mandatory respondent Koehler’s accrued interest on unpaid antidumping duties from a prior 2008 AD order shouldn’t be included in the exporter’s constructed export price. That interest wasn’t incurred as a selling expense, it said. (Domtar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 24-00113).

The U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that a recent CAFC decision, Pirelli Tyre Co. v. U.S., supports the government's position that the U.S. doesn't need to show a link between the "selection of management and the company’s export activities" in finding that a respondent has failed to show a lack of government control. Filing a notice of supplemental authority in a trio of cases, the government said Pirelli also supports its position that "respondents must meet the burden or persuasion to establish independence regardless of any evidentiary presumption" (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #s 23-2163, -2164) (China Manufacturers Alliance v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2391).

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

Cable importer Cyber Power Systems said in a March 28 motion for judgment that CBP misclassified its products, resulting in imposition of Section 301 duties. It claimed its cables fall under the tariff-free Harmonized Tariff Schedule provision for “telecommunications cables” because they serve as parts of larger telecommunications systems (Cyber Power Systems (USA) v. United States, CIT # 21-00200).

Responding to a U.S. motion to dismiss (see 2502050050), importer Houston Shutters said March 31 the trade court “must" possess jurisdiction over its challenge to the Commerce Department’s refusal to conduct a changed circumstances review under 1581(i) if it doesn’t under 1581(c) (Houston Shutters v. United States, CIT # 24-00175).

Mediation at the Court of International Trade in Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio's challenge to CBP's finding that the company makes aluminum extrusions using forced labor didn't result in a settlement. Judge Leo Gordon submitted a report of mediation on March 28 to the trade court noting the failed outcome of the mediation bid (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT # 24-00264).

Melamine exporters led by Qatar Melamine Company brought suit against the Commerce Department March 28 contesting the department’s assignment of adverse facts available to its government-supplied water and electricity purchases (Qatar Melamine Company v. United States, CIT # 25-00053).

Importer Southern Motion told the Court of International Trade that its electric DC motors were made in Vietnam and thus should have received a country of origin determination of Vietnam and not China. Filing a complaint at the trade court on March 31, Southern Motion said its products were improperly assessed Section 301 duties as a result of the COO decision (Southern Motion v. United States, CIT # 25-00033).