The Commerce Department has the power to extend its deadlines for submission of factual information on its own -- without responding to an extension request from a submitting party, the U.S. said in opposition to a domestic boltless steel shelf producer Dec. 13 (Edsal Manufacturing v. United States, CIT # 25-00087).
The Supreme Court on Dec. 18 agreed to take up TikTok's case against the bill either banning the app or forcing it to divest its U.S. operations. The court granted the TikTok's petition for writ of certiorari though it deferred its application for an injunction against the bill pending oral argument. Initial briefs in the suit are due by Dec. 27 (TikTok v. Merrick Garland, Sup. Ct. # 24-656).
Correction: Patrick Gill of Sandler Travis served as the attorney for Target during the oral argument session in the Target Corp. v. U.S. case (see 2412060063).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 16 issued its mandate in a customs suit on the classification of importer Shamrock Building Materials' steel tubing with insulating material (Shamrock Building Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1648).
A recent Court of International Trade decision reviewing the Commerce Department's differential pricing methodology under Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo is relevant to resolve a nearly identical claim in a separate case, the U.S. told the trade court in a notice of supplemental authority (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00025).
Supporting its July motion for judgment (see 2407160051), Belgium citrate exporter Citribel again asked the Court of International Trade Dec. 6 to find that the Commerce Department’s refusal to conduct quarterly conversion cost analyses is unreasonable (Citribel v. U.S., CIT # 24-00010).
The U.S. opened a customs penalty suit against New York-based importer Courtside Market last week, accusing the company of negligently skirting duties on its inkjet fabric rolls (United States v. Courtside Market, CIT # 24-00233).
The Court of International Trade in a confidential decision sustained the results of the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on pentafluoroethane (R-125) from China. Judge Richard Eaton gave the parties until Dec. 31 to review the confidential information in the decision. The suit was launched by three Chinese exporters to claim that Commerce illegally valued the factors of production of the intermediate product for a refrigerant, anhydrous hydrofluoric acid, instead of valuing the acid's reported factors of production (see 2210270069) (Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Ind. Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00103).
The Commerce Department ignored court precedent when it found magnesia carbon bricks from China that contained alumina were subject to antidumping and countervailing duties, the Court of International Trade said in a decision issued Dec. 12.