Correction: Superon Schweisstechnik India LTD. challenged CBP's classification of welding wires as subject to Section 232 tariffs (see 2110220070).

Importer Target General Merchandise filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade, arguing against CBP's analysis of the composition of its glitter/fabric ballet shoes. Target says the shoes should have been classified under a lower duty tariff provision for footwear with textile bottoms.

American steel giant U.S. Steel Corp. is seeking a stay in Russia-based steel company NLMK Pennsylvania's challenge to the Commerce Department's Section 232 exclusion denials for its steel entries until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rules on whether U.S. Steel can intervene in related cases. In its Oct. 27 motion at the Court of International Trade, U.S. Steel argued that "it is vital" for it to be able to intervene in the case and "represent its interests in the continued imposition of the Section 232 tariffs -- interests that will not be adequately represented by Defendant in this action" (NLMK Pennsylvania, LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00507).

Surety insurance provider Aegis Security Agency opposed on Oct. 27 the Department of Justice's bid for further discovery in a case over CBP’s attempt to collect on a bond issued by Aegis eight years after liquidation. Aegis argues that DOJ seeks to expand discovery without meeting the required standard for specificity or regard for the limitations on the scope of discovery in its request (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Company, CIT #20-03628).

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

The Commerce Department's failure to calculate a dumping margin for antidumping review participant Chandan Steel Ltd. and instead base the rate on adverse facts available runs contrary to the law, Chandan argued in an Oct. 23 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The exporter is challenging the final results of the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel flanges from India, covering 2018-19 entries. Chandan said it has standing as a "party to the underlying proceeding," and that the final results should be remanded so Commerce can give Chandan a rate based on its own information (Chandan Steel Limited v. United States, CIT #21-00540).

Solar cell exporter Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., along with JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co. and JingAo Solar Co., kicked off their challenge to the final results of the seventh administrative review of the countervailing duty order on crystaline silicone photovoltaic cells from China in an Oct. 27 complaint at the Court of International Trade. JA Solar received the all-others CVD rate, which totaled 19.28%. The companies are challenging the Commerce Department's reliance on adverse facts available related to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program due to Commerce's failure to verify non-use of the program by the respondents' U.S. customers (Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00548).

Importer DSM Nutritional Products, Inc. filed six complaints at the Court of International Trade on Oct. 27 seeking to secure its preferred Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading for its beta-carotene with stabilizers and/or anti-caking agent imports. American International Chemical also filed an identical complaint in its case seeking the same outcome. All six cases are led by Robert Seely of Grunfeld Desiderio.

With too many small packages to inspect, and Instagram and other social media influencers promoting knockoffs, fashion brands are dealing with a challenging environment. But panelists on a Crowell & Moring webinar Oct. 26 called "The Year of the Knockoff" found some reason for hope.

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