The Court of International Trade on May 30 denied the government's out of time motion to extend its time to respond to importer Atlas Power's requests for admissions for all discovery in a customs suit. Judge Stephen Vaden said it denied the motion since relief is available under CIT Rule 36, which "includes a mechanism for a party to request that an admission be withdrawn or amended" (Atlas Power v. U.S., CIT # 23-00084).

Antidumping duty respondent Salzgitter Mannesmann Grobblech told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a reply brief last week that the U.S. and petitioners Nucor Corp. and SSAB Enterprises failed to adequately defend the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against the respondent in the AD investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Germany (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1219).

The Court of International Trade on June 4 dismissed a customs classification suit on kids' erasable e-writing tablets from China following importer Kent Displays' notice of dismissal. The notice came after the importer lost a similar case at the trade court, which saw the government prevail in claiming that the tablets fit under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8543, which has a 2.6% duty rate (see 2405090037). In the separate case, Kent was freed from having to pay Section 301 duties on its imports since they didn't cover the tablets at the time of entry (Kent Displays v. United States, CIT # 20-03803).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last week set an expedited briefing schedule in TikTok's lawsuit against the bill that could either ban the app in the U.S. or force a sale of the social media company. The schedule says the briefs for TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, and for a group of content creators on the app are due June 20. The government's reply is due July 26, and the final reply briefs for the app and creators is due Aug. 15 (TikTok v. Merrick B. Garland, D.C. Cir. # 24-1113).

U.S. importer Water Pik will avoid Section 301 duties on its electromechanical oral hygiene devices from China after arguing that CBP should have classified them under a different Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading (Water Pik v. United States, CIT # 23-00083).

Antidumping petitioner Edsal Manufacturing Co. filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on June 4 contesting the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale from India. Edsal said Commerce erred in accepting untimely information from exporter Triune Technofab regarding the calculation of the exporter's constructed value profit (Edsal Manufacturing Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00087).

The Commerce Department wrongly attributed two unrelated entities to an Indian glycine exporter and hit it with adverse facts available for not providing those two companies’ financial information, the exporter said June 3. It also alleged that the department failed to notify it of any deficiencies in its responses (Kumar Industries v. U.S., CIT # 23-00263).

In a Swiss watch classification case ongoing since 2018, the U.S. argued May 30 that the motion for judgment filed by the watches’ importer should be dismissed for lack of proof. Alternatively, it asked its own cross-motion for judgment be granted because the importer’s watches with gold alloy cases don’t fit under its preferred heading, as that heading, which covers watches with cases made of precious metals, specifically excludes gold (Ildico Inc. v. U.S., CIT #s 18-00136, -00076).

All plaintiffs filed a joint reply to the U.S. May 31 in a case regarding the number of Chinese-origin parts required for an entire wheel to be considered of Chinese origin -- rims, discs, or both -- under an antidumping duty order on steel trailer wheels (Asia Wheel v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00096).

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