No lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade.

Importer King Maker Marketing on May 29 said it will appeal a Court of International Trade decision issued earlier this month finding that a product is "imported" for duty drawback purposes when it's admitted into a foreign-trade zone and not when entered for domestic consumption (see 2505150038). The trade court said the definition of "importation" found in both the dictionary and Supreme Court precedent distinguishes importation from entry, adding that when Congress passed the current drawback statute, it specifically decided that the five-year period in which to make a drawback claims runs from the date of importation and not the date of entry. Due to the ruling, King Maker's case challenging the rejection of its claims for substitution unused merchandise drawback was tossed as untimely (King Maker Marketing v. United States, CIT # 24-00134).

Importer APS Auto Parts Specialist on May 28 dismissed two of its Court of International Trade cases seeking Section 301 exclusions. In both cases, APS challenged CBP's denial of its protest claiming that its steel side protective attachment auto parts of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8708.29.5060 qualify for Section 301 tariff exclusions under secondary subheading 9903.88.45. Counsel for APS didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (APS Auto Parts Specialist v. United States, CIT #s 21-00233, -00268).

Importer AM Stone & Cabinets May 22 sought dismissal of one of its challenges to Commerce Department administrative reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on quartz countertops. Its case had argued that Commerce wrongly hit it with adverse facts available to determine that its products were made in China, not Malaysia (see 2501170048) (AM Stone & Cabinets v. United States, CIT # 24-00243).

Exporter Hyundai Steel and the South Korean government each pushed back again May 19 against the Commerce Department’s specificity finding, maintained after a remand, regarding the provision of off-peak electricity by the Korean government to Hyundai for less-than-adequate remuneration. The department completely failed to follow the trade court's remand order, they said (see 2504160043) (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00211).

Importer Seneca Foods told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the government is trying to support the Commerce Department's denial of Seneca's request for Section 232 tariff exclusions by "stretching" the deference shown under the arbitrary and capricious standard to "cover decisions devoid of any supporting evidence." Filing a reply brief on May 23, Seneca said it submitted enough evidence to show that the U.S. industry didn't have the capacity to fill its steel orders at the time the foreign purchase orders were made and at the time the exclusion requests were filed (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1310).

The Court of International Trade on May 27 entered default judgment against importer Rayson Global and its owner Doris Cheng in a customs penalty case after previously denying the government's bid for default judgment. In its second attempt to secure default judgment, the U.S. further defended its claim that the merchandise at issue is valued at nearly $3.4 million (United States v. Rayson Global, CIT # 23-00201).

Petitioner Aluminum Association Trade Enforcement Working Group told the Court of International Trade on May 20 that it would be making arguments in its aluminum foil case on the basis of the recently decided solar cell cases (see 2505160045, 2505190059 and 2505190054) (Hanon Systems Alabama Corp. v. United States, CIT # 24-00013).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 23 extended a stay in an antidumping duty case after the Court of International Trade settled a related lawsuit. Judge Timothy Dyk noted that the parties told the court that, if no party files an appeal in the related case, the present case before CAFC will be withdrawn. As a result, Dyk extended the stay and said the parties have until seven days after June 16 to tell the court how they plan to proceed (Bioparques de Occidente v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2109).

Steel wire importer Deacero filed a motion for judgment May 19 saying the Commerce Department’s circumvention finding regarding its prestressed concrete steel wire (PC) strand, made under Section 781(a), represents a dangerous precedent that would let Commerce impose duties on all intermediate steel products and “endanger investment” in U.S. manufacturing (Deacero v. United States, CIT # 24-00212).