The Commerce Department erred in using adverse facts available related to exporter The Ancientree Cabinet Co.'s alleged receipt of benefits from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, Ancientree argued in a Jan. 13 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Ancientree said it demonstrated that neither it nor its U.S. customers used the EBCP (The Ancientree Cabinet Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00223).

Various exporters led by Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co. challenged the Commerce Department's antidumping and countervailing duty reviews on aluminum foil from China at the Court of International Trade (Hangzhou Five Star Aluminum Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00231) (Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00228).

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

Nebraska resident Byungmin Chae will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit his second lawsuit challenging his results of the April 2018 customs broker license exam, he said in a notice of appeal. The Court of International Trade dismissed the suit after finding that it was precluded by Chae's first case challenging the test (see 2411130013). Chae is seeking credit for one question on the exam to cross the threshold of 75% correct in order to qualify as a customs broker (Byungmin Chae v. United States, CIT # 24-00086).

Domestic producers led by Dupont Teijin Films joined the U.S. government (see 2412090058) in defending the Commerce Department in another missed deadline case, calling an exporter slapped with an adverse facts available rate “careless” and “inattentive” (Jindal Poly Films v. U.S., CIT # 24-00053).

CBP reversed its finding that importer Zinus evaded the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China on remand at the Court of International Trade. CBP made the decision after incorporating a scope ruling from the Commerce Department finding that seven models of metal and wood platform beds imported by Zinus aren't covered by the AD order (Zinus v. United States, CIT # 23-00272).

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

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Jan. 3 dismissed a False Claims Act suit against Amazon, which alleged that the online retail giant conspired with Chinese manufacturers to avoid paying fees and tariffs on fur products. Judge Edgardo Ramos held that importer Henig Furs, the company that brought the suit on behalf of the U.S., failed to adequately allege that Amazon knowingly violated the FCA or was engaged in a conspiracy to violate the statute (United States, ex rel. Mike Henig v. Amazon.com, S.D.N.Y. # 19-05673).

Plaintiff tomato exporter Bioparques de Occidente, the U.S. and defendant-intervenor the Florida Tomato Exchange each supported Jan. 7 the Commerce Department’s redetermination on remand in a case involving a 27-year-old antidumping duty investigation after a consolidated plaintiff opposed it (see 2412040052) (Bioparques de Occidente v. United States, CIT Consol. # 19-00204).

The Commerce Department unlawfully chose to break with its past practice of not considering subsidies provided by the Russian government prior to April 1, 2002, in a countervailing duty review on phosphate fertilizers, respondent JSC Apatit argued. Filing a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Jan. 9, Apatit argued that Commerce failed to apply this cut-off date when analyzing whether mining rights were provided to the company for less than adequate remuneration in the 2022 review of the CVD order (Joint Stock Company Apatit v. United States, CIT # 24-00226).