The Court of International Trade on Nov. 6 granted the government's voluntary remand request in a suit on the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on aluminum extrusions from China. The U.S. asked for the remand to consider the impact of recent CIT cases Global Aluminum Distributor v. U.S. and H&E Home v. U.S. in which CBP reversed its findings of AD/CVD evasion on Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio (see 2209080013) (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00072).

Importer Lionshead Specialty Tire and Wheel argued that the continued application of an injunction on the liquidation of its "Method B" wheel entries is "inequitable," since the plain reading of the injunction shows that the Method B wheels never have been enjoined. Responding to opposition from AD/CVD petitioner Dexstar Wheel Division of Americana Development Inc. to Lionshead's bid to amend the PI at the Court of International Trade, Lionshead added that the amendment wouldn't reverse a CBP decision, as Dexstar claims (Lionshead Specialty Tire and Wheel v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00019).

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

Exporter POSCO argued on Nov. 5 that the Commerce Department's finding that the South Korean government's provision of electricity below costs is de facto specific is unsupported by substantial evidence. Filing a reply brief at the Court of International Trade, POSCO said Commerce's specificity finding "relies on a random grouping of the steel industry with two other unrelated industries" to find that the steel industry gets a disproportionate amount of the subsidy (POSCO v. United States, CIT # 24-00006).

In a motion for judgment, several Chinese tire exporters argued that the Commerce Department’s calculation of their antidumping duty rate in a recent administrative review misrepresented a mandatory respondent’s costs after Commerce applied a single per-unit expense for all boat freight without adjusting for distance (Giti Tire Global Trading v. U.S., CIT #24-00083).

For the third time, the U.S. supported the Commerce Department’s redetermination on remand in which it refused to look into South Korea’s provision of off-peak electricity at lower prices (see 2304260018) (Nucor Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00182).

The Commerce Department reasonably used exporter San Shing Fastech Corp.'s financial statements to calculate constructed value profit and selling expenses for respondent Your Standing International in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from Taiwan, the U.S. argued in a response to Your Standing's motion for judgment (Your Standing International v. United States, CIT # 24-00055).

The Court of International Trade on Nov. 1 dismissed importer Travelway Group International's customs suit for lack of prosecution. The company put its action on the customs case management calendar but failed to remove it or request an extension before time expired. Travelway brought the suit to argue that its backpacks and bags of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 4202.92.3120 and 4202.92.3131 qualify for Section 301 exclusions. Counsel for the importer didn't respond to a request for comment (Travelway Group International v. United States, CIT # 22-00312).

A recent Court of International Trade decision is relevant to settle whether the Drug Enforcement Administration is vested with the authority to make admissibility decisions on imports, importer Unichem Enterprises told the trade court on Nov. 1. Filing a notice of supplemental authority, Unichem said the decision, Inspired Ventures v. U.S., also will help resolve whether CBP "usurps the Court's authority when it seizes merchandise for forfeiture that is within the Court's jurisdiction" (UniChem Enterprises v. United States, CIT # 24-00033).

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