The Court of International Trade granted the Commerce Department's request for a voluntary remand in a case over an error the agency made in its liquidation instructions following an antidumping review. Chief Judge Mark Barnett gave the court until Oct. 15 to submit the results of its redetermination (Optima Steel International, LLC, et al. v. U.S., CIT #21-00327).

The Court of International Trade denied importer GLB Energy Corporation's preliminary injunction motion to revert its liquidated xanthan gum entries to unliquidated status, in a Sept. 30 order. Judge Gary Katzmann sided with the U.S.'s opposition to the injunction motion, finding that the court does not have jurisdiction to review entries that have already been liquidated. The obvious exception is if the case is a challenge to a denied CBP protest over a liquidated entry, which GLB has not filed. “Moreover, as the Government correctly observes, there is another avenue for GLB to preserve its rights: it can timely file an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) contesting CBP’s denial of its protest,” Katzmann said (All One God Faith, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00164).

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

The Court of International Trade designated a tariff classification challenge on circuit card assemblies as a test case for four other lawsuits all brought by the same importer in a Sept. 30 order. Judge M. Miller Baker designated Triumph Engine Control System's case #19-00094 as the test case for the other cases -- CIT #19-00108, 19-00109, 19-00110 and 19-00130. Triumph believes the proper Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading for its assemblies is 9032, while CBP claims that 8538 is the proper subheading (see 2109170030) (Triumph Engine Control Systems, LLC v. United States, CIT #19-00094).

The Court of International Trade sustained the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury determination in the antidumping investigation of polyethylene terephtalate from Oman in a Sept. 30 confidential opinion. Judge Timothy Reif sent a letter to the litigants instructing them to look over the opinion with an eye out for confidential information, informing the court by Oct. 7 whether any further information should be redacted. A public opinion of the decision can be expected by Oct. 8. OCTAL Inc. brought the case, arguing that the ITC's conclusion of adverse volume and price effects was not backed by substantial evidence (OCTAL Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03698).

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

The Commerce Department's decision to include certain derivative losses from the financial expense component of an antidumping respondent's cost of production (COP) was properly supported, the AD petitioner Domtar Corporation argued in a Sept. 29 brief at the Court of International Trade. Seeing as the respondent itself referred to the derivative losses as being related to the company's financials rather than investment activity, it was reasonable for Commerce to treat them as such, the brief said (Suzano S.A. v. United States, CIT #21-00069).

CBP erroneously classified importer Topcon Positioning System's rotating laser levels under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9031, the importer argued in a Sept. 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade. By failing to analyze the principal use of the laser levels, CBP neglected to properly classify the products under HTS subheading 9015,the complaint said (Topcon Positioning Systems, Inc. v. United States, CIT #14-00189).

Nucor Tubular Products launched a lawsuit at the Court of International Trade seeking higher dumping rates for the respondents in an antidumping review based on calculation errors committed by the Commerce Department (Nucor Tubular Products Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00543).

The Commerce Department continued to find that antidumping respondents Aeolus Tyre and Guizhou Tyre Co. were de facto controlled by the Chinese government, denying them separate rate status in Sept. 24 remand results filed at the Court of International Trade (Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd. et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #17-00100).