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

Importer Galleher submitted a notice of appeal on Oct. 8 at the Court of International Trade, indicating it will take a case on the 2017 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Last month, the trade court sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in the review, after the agency added a second respondent on remand and reconsidered certain benchmark calculations (see 2509120004). However, Galleher is appealing Commerce's decision to apply the individually calculated CVD rate to Jiangsu Guyu International Trading in the review, "despite deselecting the company as a mandatory respondent," which was at issue at an earlier stage of litigation (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 20-03885).

Arguing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 3 that the Commerce Department was right to exclude its in-transit mattresses from its affiliated importer’s constructed export price, exporter PT. Zinus Global Indonesia said petitioners “overstate their case” that data anomalies rendered the department’s choice unreasonable (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1674).

Civil litigation attorney Corey Biazzo filed the second amicus brief against the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, on Oct. 8, arguing that IEEPA categorically doesn't allow for tariffs (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).

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

Exporters Deacero and I.N.G.E.T.E.K.N.O.S. Estructurales on Oct. 3 dropped their antidumping duty case at the Court of International Trade. The companies filed suit last month to contest the final results of the Commerce Department's 2022-23 administrative review of the AD order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Mexico. Counsel for Deacero didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (Deacero v. United States, CIT # 25-00216).

Target General Merchandise will appeal a recent Court of International Trade decision regarding the tariff classification of the company's string light models, according to a notice Target filed at the trade court. Last month, CIT found string light models to be classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9405 as lamps with a "permanently fixed light source" not specified elsewhere in the tariff schedule and not under heading 8543 as parts of electrical machines having individual functions not specified elsewhere in the chapter (see 2508130023). The court said Target's seven models of string lights specifically fall under subheading 9405.30.00 as lighting sets "of a kind used for Christmas trees," subjecting the goods to an 8% duty (Target General Merchandise v. United States, CIT Consol. # 15-00069).

The Court of International Trade partially remanded the International Trade Commission's injury investigation on freight rail couplers from China in a confidential decision issued Oct. 8. Judge Gary Katzmann held oral argument in the case in July, questioning attorneys as to whether it was lawful for the ITC to open an injury investigation two months after reaching a negative injury finding for the same imports (see 2507070056) (Wabtec Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00157).

German aluminum manufacturer Speira argued in an Oct. 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade that CBP failed to apply the antidumping duty rate the Commerce Department calculated for Hydro Aluminum Rolled Products to its entries, since Commerce found that Speira is the successor-in-interest to Hydro. As a result, CBP refused to refund the excess duties paid by Speira, the company said (Speira v. United States, CIT # 25-00218).

Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio opposed the U.S. government's request to stay the company's lawsuit against CBP pending the lapse in federal appropriations. Kingtom, which is challenging CBP's finding that it made its aluminum extrusions with forced labor, argued that a stay would harm the company and that the U.S. "has made no showing of clear hardship if the stay is denied" (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT # 24-00264).