Litigants in a lawsuit on a drawback claim told the Court of International Trade in a joint status report that they don't believe the case is "amenable to mediation," though they said they are discussing whether the suit can be settled through a "stipulated judgment on agreed statement of facts." The plaintiff, individual importer Timothy Brown, said he gave the U.S. a "proposed stipulated judgment," which the U.S. is reviewing (Timothy Brown v. United States, CIT # 20-03733).

Importers Struxtur and Evolutions Flooring dropped their appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the Commerce Department's use of a country-wide adverse facts available rate in calculating the antidumping duty rate for the separate rate respondents in the 2016-17 administrative review of the AD order on multilayered wood flooring from China. The case will continue to be litigated by importers led by Galleher Corp., which filed their opening brief last week, arguing that the use of the AFA rate punishes the separate rate respondents for respondent Sino-maple's lack of cooperation and leads to an aberrational AD rate (see 2502050023). Counsel for Struxtur and Evolutions didn't respond to a request for comment (Fuson Jinlong Wooden Group Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1196).

In response Feb. 10 to a steel labor union’s December motion for judgment (see 2412110059), the U.S. defended a Commerce Department scope ruling that temporary-use tires weren’t subject to antidumping duties on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Taiwan, saying the union hadn’t exhausted its administrative remedies (United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union v. United States, CIT # 24-00165).

The Commerce Department permissibly refused to offer exporter East Sea Seafoods Joint Stock Company separate rate status in the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on catfish from Vietnam, petitioner Catfish Farmers of America argued in a Feb. 10 brief supporting Commerce's remand results. The petitioner said that while the Court of International Trade relied on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Yanghzou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co. v. U.S. to remand the issue, legal developments since Bestpak have called into question the relevance of the decision (Green Farms Seafood Joint Stock Company v. United States, CIT # 22-00092).

Indian exporter Jindal Poly Films said Feb. 10 that the government was wrong to claim that an employee’s “severe illness” wasn’t a “medical emergency” that justified an untimely filing extension request. Overall, it said, the Commerce Department’s rejection of that request was the result of an analysis that was “riddled with errors” (Jindal Poly Films v. United States, CIT # 24-00053).

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

In a motion for judgment, exporter CS Wind Malaysia again said the Commerce Department should have adjusted its manufacturing costs for a production stoppage throughout most of the period of an administrative review of an antidumping duty order (see 2409090008) (CS Wind Malaysia v. U.S., CIT # 24-00150).

The Court of International Trade reassigned a case on importer Meyer Corp.'s claim for first sale valuation on its cookware imports, from Judge Thomas Aquilino to Judge Richard Eaton. In his first decision in the case, Aquilino questioned whether first sale valuation could be used for goods coming from non-market economies. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said CBP has no basis to consider a nation's NME status when deciding whether to grant first sale treatment, sending the case back for consideration of Meyer's shipments (see 2208110060). In his second opinion, Aquilino said the imports at issue don't quality for first sale treatment due to the failure of Meyer's parent company, Meyer International Holdings, to submit financial information (see 2302090053). This decision is now before the Federal Circuit again, which held oral argument in September 2024 (see 2409040034) (Meyer Corp. v. United States, CIT # 13-00154).

Importer Shamrock Building Materials filed a stipulation of dismissal in its customs case at the Court of International Trade on Feb. 7. The importer brought the suit to contest CBP's classification of its electrical metallic tubing finished conduit and intermediate metal conduit under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7306.30.1000 or 7306.30.5028, dutiable at 25%. The company said the products should fall under duty-free subheading 8547.90.0020. Counsel for Shamrock didn't respond to a request for comment (Shamrock Building Materials v. United States, CIT # 21-00571).

Importers and exporters led by Amsted Rail Co. stipulated the dismissal of one of their rail coupler cases and sought to amend their complaint in another Feb. 7 (Amsted Rail Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00242, -00268).