The U.S. acknowledged on Aug. 16 that CBP mistakenly liquidated certain tire entries subject to an injunction from the Court of International Trade. Filing a status report, the government said the Commerce Department "took corrective action," telling CBP to "promptly return to unliquidated status any entries that had been inadvertently liquidated in violation of the Court’s order" (Titan Tire Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00233).

Chinese semiconductor equipment maker Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment (AMEC) sued the Pentagon last week for wrongly designating the firm as a Chinese military company. AMEC claimed that its designation violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 and the U.S. Constitution (Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment v. United States, D.D.C. # 24-02357).

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

Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) will appeal its three separate cases filed at the Court of International Trade regarding the sunset review of an antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Turkey (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT #'s 22-00349, -00350, -00351).

Importer CVB filed a stipulation of dismissal in its case challenging the Commerce Department's scope decision finding that the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China doesn't cover seven models of wood platform beds imported by Zinus. Most recently in the case, the U.S. argued that CVB didn't have standing to challenge the scope decision because CVB is an importer and can't show that it was injured by the scope ruling (see 2407160052). The government said none of CVB's goods is at issue. It said the importer challenges the determination that another company's entries are outside the scope of the order, but "it has failed to demonstrate what stake it has in this determination." Counsel for CVB didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (CVB v. U.S., CIT # 24-00036).

A Swiss watchmaker embroiled in a customs dispute with the U.S. since 2018 "failed to provide” evidence that the watches its commercial invoices identified were actually the ones it imported, the government said Aug. 13 in support of its cross-motion for judgment (Ildico v. United States, CIT # 18-00136).

In a confidential order, the Court of International Trade on Aug. 15 remanded the final results of an administrative review on frozen shrimp from India. In doing so, Judge Thomas Aquilino granted the motions for judgment of both an exporter and a petitioner (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00202).

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

The gunmaker Glock, embroiled in a dispute regarding the valuation of an entry of imported pistol kits, said Aug. 12 that the U.S.’s objections to its discovery request -- and its subsequent defenses of those objections before the trade court -- were inaccurate and could indicate that the government doesn’t understand the law (Glock v. U.S., CIT # 23-00046).

The U.S. said Aug. 12 that the Commerce Department doesn’t have to consider a ministerial error allegation regarding the final results of a review because the error went unnoticed in the preliminary results (The Ancientree Cabinet Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00262).