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

Antidumping duty petitioner Coalition for Fair Trade in Shopping Bags and exporter Finieco Industria e Comercio de Embalagens dropped their lawsuits on the antidumping duty investigation on paper shopping bags from Portugal, filing a stipulation of dismissal on Dec. 23. The coalition argued that the Commerce Department failed to treat Finieco's fixed payments to sales employees as indirect selling expenses (see 2409120037) (Coalition for Fair Trade in Shopping Bags v. U.S., CIT # 24-00158) (Finieco Industria e Comercio de Embalagens v. U.S., CIT # 24-00160).

A suit on the 2020-22 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on common alloy aluminum sheet from Spain was reassigned on Dec. 19 from Judge Timothy Reif to Judge Mark Barnett. The suit was brought by exporter Compania Valenciana de Aluminio Baux and claims that the Commerce Department's self-developed "levels of trade" test doesn't comport with U.S. law, especially in light of the Supreme Court's decision eliminating deference to agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes (see 2412040058). Counsel for Compania Valenciana declined to comment on the change in judges (Compania Valenciana de Aluminio Baux, S.L.U. v. United States, CIT # 23-00259).

The Commerce Department erred in changing the date of sale for respondent Toyo Kohan Co.'s U.S. transactions in the 2022-23 review of the antidumping duty order on diffusion-annealed nickel-plated flat-rolled steel from Japan, the company said in a complaint at the Court of International Trade. The exporter said Commerce "did not justify" its change from using the date of invoice as the date of sale to using the shipment date from Japan as the date of sale (Toyo Kohan Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00261).

In comments on remand results, plaintiffs led by tire exporter YC Rubber said that the Commerce Department based its respondent selection for a 2016-2017 antidumping duty review on only a subset of mandatory respondent Kenda Rubber’s entries even though its practice requires consideration of all entries (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. U.S., CIT # 19-00069).

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

Importer Seneca Foods Corp. will appeal a Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's rejection of eight Section 232 steel tariff exclusion requests, the company said in a notice of appeal (see 2410240029). In the decision, the trade court found that the rejections were backed by substantial evidence and in line with agency practice. The court also sustained Commerce's focus on "prospective evidence of steel production" and rejected Seneca's claim that Commerce's approach gives "short shrift to course-of-dealing evidence" that suggests that an objecting U.S. company won't actually deliver the goods (Seneca Foods Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00243).

Importer Ideavillage Products Corp. on Dec. 19 voluntarily dismissed at the Court of International Trade its customs suit regarding the tariff classification of its shavers and replacement cutting heads. The company challenged CBP's classification of the goods under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8510.30.0000, dutiable at 4.2%, claiming they should be classified under subheading 8510.10.0000, free of duty. Counsel for Ideavillage declined to comment (Ideavillage Products Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00332).

The Commerce Department stuck with its determination in the 2021-22 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel from Italy that exporter Dalmine and its Romanian input provider Silcotub shouldn't be collapsed (ArcelorMittal Tubular Products v. United States, CIT # 24-00039).

The Commerce Department improperly found that exporter Balkrishna Industries didn't benefit from the Advanced Authorization Scheme in India as part of the 2022 review of the countervailing duty order on new pneumatic off-the-road tires from India, petitioner Titan Tire Corp. argued. Filing a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 20, Titan Tire said Commerce erred in accepting a "post hoc and incomplete examination" of the program performed by the Indian government (Titan Tire Corp. v. United States, CIT # 24-00207).