Importer Honeywell pushed back April 4 against a U.S. motion for rehearing after the Court of International Trade sided with it to find its precut radial, chordial and web fabric pieces, used in airplane brakes, were “parts of an aircraft” rather than “fabrics” (see 2501300051). The trade court hadn't misapplied the Harmonized Tariff Schedule's General Rules of Interpretation, it said (Honeywell International Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 17-00256).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on April 4 after issuing a decision finding that the Commerce Department's third factor for assessing a foreign government's de facto control over an exporter, which addresses the selection of management, doesn't require a link to export activities. The appellate court also said Commerce properly requires separate rate respondents to "carry a burden of persuasion to justify a separate rate," rejecting exporter Pirelli Tyre Co.'s claim that the agency shouldn't have conflated a rebuttable presumption with a requirement to carry a burden of persuasion (see 2502110030). The court found that Pirelli didn't rebut the presumption of foreign state control in the 2017-18 review of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China (Pirelli Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2266).

Importer Amcor Flexibles Singen GmbH filed a stipulated judgment at the Court of International Trade in its customs suit on the classification of its aluminum foil entries. The judgment said the goods are to be classified under duty-free Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7607.20.50, which covers other backed aluminum foil. CBP initially classified the goods under subheading 3921.90.40, which covers flexible products with textile components in which man-made fibers predominate by weight over any other single textile fiber. The product at issue is "20-micron aluminum foil, soft-temper, plain, bright side lacquer laminated to a 12-micron PET film" (Amcor Flexibles Singen GmbH v. United States, CIT # 16-00200).

Importer Scioto Valley Woodworking opposed April 2 a Commerce Department finding on remand (see 2501310016) that it had evaded antidumping and countervailing duties (American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance v. United States, CIT # 23-00140).

The U.S. pushed back April 2 against a petitioner’s motion -- with a defendant-intervenor exporter’s consent -- to stay a challenge to the countervailing duty order review of Indian-origin pneumatic off-the-road tires (Titan Tire Corp. v. United States, CIT # 24-00207).

The Court of International Trade dismissed two customs cases, one brought by Meijer Distribution and one by Printing Textiles, for failure to prosecute. Both were put on the customs case management calendar but were not removed before the expiration of the "applicable period of time of removal." Meijer's case concerned whether its hand soap entries of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 3401.30.50 were properly hit with Section 301 tariffs (see 2303130060). Meanwhile, the case from Printing Textiles, doing business as Berger Textiles, was on whether its coated fabric imports were properly subject to antidumping duties (see 2303150073). Neither attorney for either company responded to our requests for comment (Meijer Distribution v. United States, CIT # 23-00061) (Printing Textiles v. United States, CIT # 23-00062).

Rebar exporter Kaptan Demir argued that the U.S. failed to defend the Commerce Department's position in the 2021 countervailing duty review on steel concrete rebar from Turkey that exemptions from Turkey's Banking and Insurance Transactions Tax (BITT) are de jure specific. Filing a reply brief at the Court of International Trade on March 30, Kaptan said the government's position that Kaptan failed to provide evidence that every Turkish company is eligible for the exemption is "factually incorrect" (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #24-00096).

The U.S. on April 1 defended the Commerce Department’s determination that -- in a review of German-origin thermal paper -- mandatory respondent Koehler’s accrued interest on unpaid antidumping duties from a prior 2008 AD order shouldn’t be included in the exporter’s constructed export price. That interest wasn’t incurred as a selling expense, it said. (Domtar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 24-00113).

The U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that a recent CAFC decision, Pirelli Tyre Co. v. U.S., supports the government's position that the U.S. doesn't need to show a link between the "selection of management and the company’s export activities" in finding that a respondent has failed to show a lack of government control. Filing a notice of supplemental authority in a trio of cases, the government said Pirelli also supports its position that "respondents must meet the burden or persuasion to establish independence regardless of any evidentiary presumption" (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #s 23-2163, -2164) (China Manufacturers Alliance v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2391).

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