In a third amended scheduling order, the Court of International Trade set a new Aug. 13 deadline for motions in a case that has been ongoing since 2022. The extension follows an amended complaint filed April 1 in which plaintiff Zoetis Services said that CBP had classified a “nearly identical” product to its own under a Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading it preferred (Zoetis Services LLC v. U.S., CIT #22-00056).

A petitioner in a review of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain chassis and subassemblies from China filed a consent motion April 10 to intervene in a case challenging that review brought by importer Pitts Enterprises. The Coalition of American Chassis Manufacturers said it intends to join the case on the side of Pitts to litigate the Commerce Department’s interpretation of the orders’ language (Pitts Enterprises, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00030).

The U.S. and steel importer AM/NS Calvert announced in a joint report April 12 that they are still in the process of seeking settlement in a case regarding the Commerce Department’s denial of the importer’s Section 232 tariff exclusion requests (AM/NS Calvert v. U.S., CIT # 21-00005).

A domestic petitioner said April 11 that it supports the Commerce Department’s result after a second remand that an Indonesian biodiesel exporter’s antidumping and countervailing duties hadn’t overlapped to create a double remedy -- a conclusion the department reached after it reluctantly conducted a court-ordered pass-through analysis (see 2403130049). The exporter also announced earlier that it wouldn't be submitting comments in opposition (Wilmar Trading PTE Ltd. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 18-00121).

Parkdale and the government filed a joint motion April 11 requesting more time to consider whether the company could file its case challenging CBP’s denial of its mixed-use drawback claims before repaying the accelerated drawback it received (see 2205180046). The motion says Parkdale recently sent CBP a letter with the company’s position on “whether the re-payment of accelerated drawback constitutes a liquidated duty under 28 U.S.C. § 2637, and therefore required to be paid to the government before this action was commenced,” as planned in a previous extension motion in December (Parkdale America v. U.S., CIT # 22-00019).

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

The trade court asked both parties in a case for supplemental briefing addressing whether note 3 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule’s section XVI should be applied to a supermodule that goes into power plants. The U.S. claims that the product should be analyzed under note 2, which it said was mutually exclusive with note 3; the importer, HyAxiom, advocates for interpretation under note 3 (HyAxiom v. U.S., CIT # 21-00057).

A number of Canadian lumber exporters moved for judgment upon the agency record in a softwood lumber case April 5. So did defendant-intervenors led by a domestic petitioner group, which said that the Commerce Department should have subtracted countervailing duty costs from the exporters’ U.S. prices (Government of Canada v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00187).

Importer Cambridge Isotope Laboratories told the Court of International Trade April 9 that following consultations with petitioner Committee for Fair Trade in Ammonium Sulfate, it has filed a new changed circumstances review request with the Commerce Department (Cambridge Isotope Laboratories v. U.S., CIT # 23-00080).

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