The U.S. and importer SGS Sports submitted a stipulation of facts and joint motion for the entry of a judgment in a customs case on the classification of reimported swimsuits, avoiding a bench trial over whether the swimsuits qualify for Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9801.00.20 as U.S. goods returned (SGS Sports v. United States, CIT # 18-00128).

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 8 text-only order denied Florida man Zhe "John" Liu's motion to amend the protective order in a customs penalty case against Liu and his company GL Paper Distribution. The U.S. said the motion was another attempt to get around the limits of discovery in a separate criminal proceeding against Liu (United States v. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT # 22-00215).

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 5 granted a motion to dismiss an appeal of a countervailing duty suit from the U.S. and petitioner Nucor Corp. The court lifted the stay in the case and dismissed the case after also considering the "non-participation" of exporters POSCO and Hyundai Steel Co. and the South Korean government (POSCO v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1576).

The U.S. opposed Florida man Zhe "John" Liu's motion to amend the protective order in a customs penalty suit seemingly to allow Liu to review documents produced by the U.S. The government said the protective order doesn't need to be amended since it supplies the defendant with the "full ability to review the materials provided to him in discovery," adding that Liu "conjures a dilemma where none exists" and his reasoning appears to be pretextual for gaining evidence he isn't entitled to "under the governing criminal discovery rules" (U.S. v. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT # 22-00215).

The Commerce Department shouldn't have rejected a ministerial error comment submitted by The Ancientree Cabinet Co. that pointed out an incorrect dumping margin calculated by the agency, Ancientree said Jan. 5. The company called Commerce’s rejection “arbitrary and an abuse of discretion” (The Ancientree Cabinet Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00262).

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 5 issued a confidential opinion sustaining the sixth antidumping duty review on steel nails from Oman. Oman Fasteners brought suit to contest the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against the exporter for supposedly failing to submit all of its responses to Commerce's supplemental questionnaire by the deadline (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., CIT # 22-00348).

The U.S. swapped its principal counsel in an antidumping and countervailing duty scope case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning importer Siffron's plastic shelf dividers. In a notice of substitution Jan. 3, the government said Christopher Berridge, DOJ trial attorney in the Commercial Litigation Branch, will replace Daniel Roland. In the case, the Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's exclusion of Siffron's dividers from the AD/CVD orders on raw flexible magnets from China (see 2309260049) (Magnum Magnetics Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1164).

The U.S. opposed importer 3BTech's motion to amend the scheduling order in a customs case, arguing that the company failed to show good cause for the amount of time requested.

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