The Court of International Trade on March 10 dismissed a group of exporters' antidumping duty suit for lack of prosecution. Exporters Norma (India), USK Exports Private, Uma Shanker Khandelwal & Co. and Bansidhar Chiranjilal brought the case last month against the Commerce Department's 2022-23 administrative review of the AD order on finished carbon steel flanges from India (see 2502030068). Counsel for the exporters said in an email that the companies decided not to pursue the case (Norma (India) Limited v. United States, CIT # 25-00037).

The U.S. defended its decision to find that Vietnamese currency undervaluation is de facto specific to the traded goods sector at the Court of International Trade. Responding to arguments from exporter Kumho Tire (Vietnam) Co., the government said the exporter failed to undermine Commerce's conclusion that the traded goods sector was the "predominant user of the subsidy" (Kumho Tire (Vietnam) Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00397).

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

CBP and importer Motivation Design settled a customs case on pet carriers, with the government agreeing to go with the importer's preferred tariff classification for a lower duty rate. Filing a stipulated judgment at the Court of International Trade, the parties agreed that CBP will classify the pet carriers under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6307.90.98, dutiable at 7%, as "other textile articles," instead of subheading 4202.92.90, dutiable at 17.6%, as a case with outer surface of textile materials. CBP classified the goods under subheading 4202.92.90 at entry (Motivation Design v. United States, CIT # 15-00212).

The U.S. filed a March 7 cross-motion for judgment in a classification dispute brought by mastectomy brassiere importer Amoena USA. It said the products fall under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading for bras, not for accessories to artificial body parts (Amoena USA Corp. v. United States, CIT #20-00100).

The Court of International Trade should not give importer Under the Weather leave to amend its complaint to add a claim in its customs suit on the tariff treatment of its see-through pop-up tent "pods," the U.S. said in a brief filed last week. The government said the proposed amendment to Under the Weather's complaint is "untimely," since it's "now years after" the importer "could have presented its claim to Customs," adding that the claim also fails to state a valid argument (Under the Weather v. United States, CIT # 21-00211).

Frozen fish fillet petitioner Catfish Farmers of America again argued March 5 the U.S. was wrong to state that it hadn’t sought certain information from a review respondent, and, because of that, a gap in the record was justified (Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, CIT # 24-00082).

Pea protein exporters filed their motion for judgment March 4 in their case challenging the use of adverse facts available for China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in a countervailing duty investigation (Zhaoyuan Junbang Trading Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00180).

Correction: In oral argument, Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif grappled with whether the Commerce Department reasonably selected a broader, less-specific plywood price dataset over a smaller, more specific one. He also dealt with the department’s application of adverse facts available to multilayered wood flooring review respondents after a finding of government control based on the Chinese government’s “deficient” questionnaire responses (Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00136) (see 2503050059).

The U.S. filed a March 4 motion to consolidate cases brought by exporter Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations (see 2412240029) and petitioner United Steel, Paper and Forestry (see 2502070071). Both cases concern the final determination in an antidumping duty investigation on truck and bus tires from Thailand (Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations v. United States, CIT # 24-00263; United Steel, Paper and Forestry International Union v. United States, CIT # 25-00004).