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

The Court of International Trade issued its judgment in a customs case on action camera maker GoPro Inc.'s camera housings just under two weeks after issuing its opinion in the case. In the Dec. 28 opinion, the court said the camera housings are camera parts and not cases, able to enter the U.S. duty-free (see 2312280038). On Jan. 9, Judge Timothy Reif granted GoPro's motion for summary judgment (GoPro Inc. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 20-00176).

Tire exporters Guizhou Tyre Co. and Aeolus Tyre Co. asked for 6,000 more words for their opening brief after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected their bid to submit two separate briefs. The companies noted that they received the government's consent and there's "good cause" to expand the word count (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2163).

A Moroccan exporter argued the Commerce Department can't ask open-ended questions about whether governments provided it any “other” subsidies, in questionnaires sent during administrative reviews (OCP S.A. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00261).

The U.S. defended the results, on voluntary remand, of its antidumping duty investigation on forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany, saying the Commerce Department wasn't allowed to adjust its calculations of an exporter’s costs of production in response to a particular market situation (Ellwood City Forge Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00077).

Commenting upon the results of a second remand, Chinese cabinet exporter Ancientree Cabinet Co. challenged the Commerce Department’s continued use of adverse facts available when calculating the exporter’s countervailing duty rate, imposed because Commerce claimed it couldn't verify the exporter’s participation in China’s Export Buyer’s Credit Program (Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co. v. U.S., CIT # 20-00110).

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

Antidumping petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire will appeal a January Court of International Trade decision sustaining the sixth AD review of steel nails from Oman in which the Commerce Department dropped its use of adverse facts available against exporter Oman Fasteners (see 2401050018). As stated in a notice of appeal, the petitioner will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The notice of appeal was filed before a public version of the trade court's decision was released (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., CIT # 22-00348).

Parties in a case on the 2020 countervailing duty review on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Turkey disagreed on the impact of the Court of International Trade's ruling in a separate suit concerning the 2018 review of the same CVD order. Filing a joint status report to the trade court on Jan. 8, the U.S. and exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret said no consensus has been reached and "none of the parties have changed their position," though Kaptan said the court's decision "dictates the outcome of this proceeding given virtually identical facts" (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 22-00149).

The Commerce Department was wrong to equate captive power industries and utilities in its determination that an Indian aluminum exporter had received coal for less-than-adequate remuneration, the exporter said Jan. 5 in the Court of International Trade (Hindalco Industries Limited v. U.S., CIT # 23-00260)