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

The U.S. and exporter PAO TMK agreed Jan. 8 to dismiss PAO’s case against the Commerce Department’s determination in its Russian seamless pipe countervailing duty investigation. Commerce found in the investigation that PAO received countervailable subsidies through the provision of natural gas for less-than-adequate remuneration and through loans from Russian state-owned banks. The case was stayed in 2021 following a consent motion (see 2112290005) (PAO TMK v. U.S., CIT #21-00531, -00534).

The U.S. Jan. 6 supported the Commerce Department’s final results in an Indian off-road tires countervailing duty review against attacks from petitioner Titan Tire. A mandatory respondent didn’t receive the benefit of import duty exemptions from the Indian government, it said (Titan Tire Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 23-00233).

Responding to a motion for judgment, the U.S. stood up for the Commerce Department’s scope ruling that pencil importer School Specialty’s products weren’t substantially transformed in the Philippines and should be subject to antidumping duties on pencils from China (School Specialty v. U.S., CIT # 24-00098).

The U.S. again pushed back Jan. 6 against domestic producer Deer Park Glycine’s claim that the Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over its challenge to a denied scope ruling application (see 2412050059) (Deer Park Glycine v. U.S., CIT # 24-00016).

The Commerce Department adequately calculated the boat freight surrogate value in an antidumping duty review without making an adjustment for distance, the U.S. argued. Responding to respondent Giti Tire Global Trading's motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade, the government said Commerce showed that its calculation was in line with its past practice (Giti Tire Global Trading v. United States, CIT # 24-00083).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on Jan. 7 after rejecting Canadian lumber exporter J.D. Irving's attempt to challenge the denial of an antidumping duty cash deposit rate under Section 1581(i). The company recently petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case (see 2501020026). CAFC dismissed the case after finding its true nature to be a challenge to a former AD rate received by J.D. Irving, making jurisdiction proper under Section 1581(c) (see 2410100042). In addition, the court said relief could be sought either before a binational panel or in an AD review (J.D. Irving v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1652).

Another plaintiff group in a large, branching Vietnamese plywood circumvention investigation case raised exporter-specific arguments Jan. 2 against the Commerce Department’s adverse facts available-based circumvention finding for 20 exporters (Shelter Forest International Acquisition v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00144).

CBP will liquidate importer Neo Chemicals & Oxides' mixed oxide products using a "first sale" transaction valuation method, the government and importer said in a stipulated judgment. Submitting the stipulation to the Court of International Trade on Jan. 6, the parties said the company's entries "will be appraised under the transaction value method based on the prices the middleman paid to the manufacturer." Neo brought the suit in 2021 seeking first sale valuation of its goods classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule headings 3815 and 2846 (see 2108190065) (Neo Chemicals & Oxides v. United States, CIT # 21-00453).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit reversed a lower court's dismissal of sugar producer North American Surgar Industries' suit against five companies for allegedly trafficking the company's property, which was stolen by the Cuban government. Judges Charles Wilson, Robert Luck and Barbara Lagoa held that the lower court incorrectly found that the alleged violations of the Helms-Burton Act only occurred in Cuba (North American Sugar Industries v. Xinjiang Goldwind Science & Technology, 11th Cir. # 23-10126).