The U.S. on Dec. 9 sought default judgment at the Court of International Trade against importer Rago Tires in its customs penalty suit against the company for failing to pay antidumping and countervailing duties on truck and bus tires from China. The government brought the suit in February, alleging that Rago was grossly negligent in avoiding the AD/CVD (see 2402210061). The U.S. said it served the company's "principal and registered agent" a copy of the summons and complaint but has received no response. As a result, since the deadline to respond has lapsed, the government requested default judgment of $56,435.48 for the gross negligence claim (United States v. Rago Tires, CIT # 24-00043).

The U.S. defended the Commerce Department’s controversial enforcement of strict deadlines in another case Dec. 5, saying that the missed Dec. 26, 2022, deadline had been “clearly stated” by Commerce and acknowledged by the exporter (Jindal Poly Films v. U.S., CIT # 24-00053).

In a Dec. 3 motion for judgment before the Court of International Trade, domestic producer Edsal Manufacturing again (see 2407120060) said that the Commerce Department should have used the more comparable surrogate it suggested in an antidumping duty investigation on boltless steel shelves from Thailand (Edsal Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00108).

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

Surety firm American Alternative Insurance Corp. filed a cross-claim in a customs penalty suit brought by the U.S. against importer Repwire, its manager Jose Pigna and the surety. On Dec. 9, American Alternative Insurance told the Court of International Trade that Repwire and Pigna should be compelled to pay the over $13 million penalty and that the company and its manager "are obligated to indemnify" the insurance company for the amount of duties and fees being demanded (United States v. Repwire, CIT # 24-00173).

Importer Fine Emeralds will get refunds for duties paid on its rough, unworked emerald stones, the company announced in a stipulated judgment filed on Dec. 9 at the Court of International Trade. While the emeralds were assessed 10.5% duties under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7103.10.40, the government agreed to classify the products under subheading 7103.10.20, free of duty. Fine Emeralds' preferred subheading covers uncorked precious stones (Fine Emeralds v. U.S., CIT # 20-03928).

Chinese-origin countertop importer Superior Commercial Solutions argued Dec. 6 it hadn’t waived its challenge to the CBP regulation that allows it to initiate Enforce and Protect Act investigations based on a petition’s “date of receipt,” which is determined by the agency (Superior Commercial Solutions v. United States, CIT # 24-00052).

Various U.S. manufacturers dropped a pair of cases at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 5, following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision finding that the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 doesn't require payouts of interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest, to affected domestic producers (see 2407150031). The appellate court said earlier this year that the act doesn't require delinquency interest payments but only payments of interest that's "earned" on antidumping and countervailing duties and "assessed" under the associated AD or CVD order. The two cases -- one led by Novolex, doing business as Hilex Poly Co. and the other by Bassett Furniture Industries -- had been stayed pending the outcome of the lead case (Bassett Furniture Industries v. U.S., CIT # 19-00073) (Novolex d/b/a Hilex Poly Co. v. U.S., CIT # 19-00074).

The U.S. opposed Canadian lumber exporters' bid to get the court to clarify its instruction to CBP to "discontinue ... the collection of" cash deposits made on entries brought in before a prior Court of International Trade decision, which said it wasn't equitable to subject the companies' exports to the countervailing duty order on Canadian softwood lumber (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, CIT # 19-00122).

Glycine producer Deer Park Glycine said Dec. 3 that the Court of International Trade does have jurisdiction under section 1581(c), or alternatively 1581(i), to hear its challenge of the Commerce Department’s rejection of Deer Park’s “duplicative” scope ruling request (Deer Park Glycine v. U.S., CIT # 24-00016).