Cable importer Cyber Power Systems said in a March 28 motion for judgment that CBP misclassified its products, resulting in imposition of Section 301 duties. It claimed its cables fall under the tariff-free Harmonized Tariff Schedule provision for “telecommunications cables” because they serve as parts of larger telecommunications systems (Cyber Power Systems (USA) v. United States, CIT # 21-00200).
Responding to a U.S. motion to dismiss (see 2502050050), importer Houston Shutters said March 31 the trade court “must" possess jurisdiction over its challenge to the Commerce Department’s refusal to conduct a changed circumstances review under 1581(i) if it doesn’t under 1581(c) (Houston Shutters v. United States, CIT # 24-00175).
Mediation at the Court of International Trade in Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio's challenge to CBP's finding that the company makes aluminum extrusions using forced labor didn't result in a settlement. Judge Leo Gordon submitted a report of mediation on March 28 to the trade court noting the failed outcome of the mediation bid (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT # 24-00264).
Melamine exporters led by Qatar Melamine Company brought suit against the Commerce Department March 28 contesting the department’s assignment of adverse facts available to its government-supplied water and electricity purchases (Qatar Melamine Company v. United States, CIT # 25-00053).
Importer Southern Motion told the Court of International Trade that its electric DC motors were made in Vietnam and thus should have received a country of origin determination of Vietnam and not China. Filing a complaint at the trade court on March 31, Southern Motion said its products were improperly assessed Section 301 duties as a result of the COO decision (Southern Motion v. United States, CIT # 25-00033).
Correction: The government, on the other hand, argued that Koehler Paper is the successor-in-interest to Koehler Oberkirch because it has “voluntarily inherited the jurisdictional contacts of Koehler Oberkirch.” Koehler Oberkirch, meanwhile, is the successor-in-interest to Papierfabrik, it said (see 2503270034) (United States v. Koehler Oberkirch, CIT # 24-0001).
Antidumping duty petitioner Catfish Farmers of America dropped two cases at the Court of International Trade concerning the surrogate information used in the 2018-19 and 2019-20 reviews of the AD order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. The petitioner said that in light of the trade court's recent decision sustaining the Commerce Department's choice of India as a surrogate over Indonesia in a previous review of the same AD order (see 2503100059), it's dismissing its cases on the later two reviews. The petitioner said it's dropping the cases to conserve resources "while continuing to pursue issues relevant to surrogate country and value selection in ongoing and future administrative reviews" (Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, CIT #s 21-00380, 22-00125).
A petitioner March 27 supported a U.S. motion to dismiss exporter Pipe & Piling Supplies’ complaint (see 2503250054). It agreed that the pipe exporter hadn’t established the Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over it (Pipe & Piling Supplies v. United States, CIT # 24-00211).
Petitioner Catfish Farmers of America said again March 14 that a new Vietnamese frozen fish fillet exporter’s single U.S. sale wasn’t bona fide. The government’s arguments to the contrary (see 2502130061) contradicted its own past practice and were post hoc justifications, it said (Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, CIT # 24-00126).
The Commerce Department has let respondents "game the system" and avoid countervailing duty liability for an otherwise countervailable program "simply by requesting a 'verification' after the fact from a willing foreign government," petitioner Titan Tire Corp. argued in a March 28 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Titan Tire said this system "creates a loophole that threatens to eviscerate the regulation through significant potential gamesmanship" (Titan Tire Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00233).