The Court of International Trade on March 14 gave parties in a customs case filed by importer BASF Corp. an extra two weeks to file dispositive motions. BASF filed a consent motion on March 13 after fact and expert discovery wrapped up to give the parties more time to prepare a "statement of undisputed material facts." BASF added that its counsel has other cases before the court and federal agencies, requiring the extension (BASF Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 13-00318).

Indian exporter Kumar Industries and the U.S. agreed that each should bear its own costs after Kumar withdrew its appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an antidumping duty case (Kumar Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1293).

The U.S. on March 13 responded to a petitioner’s remand redetermination comments after that petitioner directly told Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Stanceu he had been “misled” to issue an erroneous ruling (The Mosaic Company v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00116).

In a March 13 complaint, a tire importer alleged that CBP refused to physically release two entries of its tires despite releasing them in its system and despite the importer having completed all the proper paperwork and paid the necessary fees (Inspired Ventures, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 24-00062).

The Court of International Trade in a confidential March 14 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on granular polytetrafluoroethylene resin from India. In a letter to the parties, Judge M. Miller Baker said he wants to publish a public version of the opinion March 19. U.S. manufacturer Daikin America brought the suit to contest Commerce's decision to accept respondent Gujarat Fluorochemicals' method for reporting its U.S. movement expenses (see 2205120026). Daikin said that Gujarat Fluorochemicals ignored Commerce's instructions to report its sales expenses on a transaction-specific basis, warranting adverse facts available, and that the agency illegally granted a constructed export price offset for the respondent (Daikin America v. U.S., CIT # 22-00122).

The Court of International Trade in a confidential March 14 order remanded the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on oil country tubular goods from Argentina. In a letter to the litigants, Judge Claire Kelly said she wants to issue a public version of the opinion on or just after March 22. Exporters led by Tenaris Bay City brought the suit contesting Commerce's decision to start the investigation as not being backed by enough of the domestic industry (see 2310230051) (Tenaris Bay City v. U.S., CIT # 22-00343).

In a long-delayed motion for summary judgment in a case that began in 2018, a Swiss watch importer argued that CBP had relied on the wrong definitions of "watch crystal” and “watch case” when it misclassified its entries at a higher duty rate (Ildico Inc. v. U.S., CIT #s 18-00136, -00076).

Exporter Hyundai Steel Co. argued against the Commerce Department's finding that the South Korean government's provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration is de facto specific in the 2021 countervailing duty review on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea. Filing a motion for judgment on March 12, Hyundai claimed that the record doesn't show that the steel industry "received a disproportionately large amount of this subsidy" as required by a de facto specificity analysis (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00211).

The Commerce Department on March 12 said that on remand it treated exporter Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co. as a mandatory respondent in the 2020-21 review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan, assigning the company a 5.2% AD rate. The agency asked for the remand so it could grant the exporter mandatory respondent status following a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision that said Commerce must use more than one mandatory respondent where multiple companies request review (see 2208290026) (Optima Steel International v. U.S., CIT # 23-00108).

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