The U.S. reiterated its stance that a cigarette seller’s products were considered imported on the date of arrival for admission to a foreign-trade zone, not the date on which they left it for domestic sale. It asked the Court of International Trade to dismiss the importer’s complaint with prejudice (King Maker Marketing v. United States, CIT # 24-00134).

The U.S. and importer Mirror Metals filed a stipulated judgment on agreed facts in which the government agreed not to apply 25% Section 232 tariffs to the importer’s steel articles (Mirror Metals v. United States, CIT #21-00144).

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

The Court of International Trade dismissed eight customs cases for lack of prosecution, noting that all cases were previously placed on the customs case management calendar but weren't removed "at the expiration of the applicable period of time of removal."

Cambridge Isotope Laboratories, an importer of enriched isotope compounds, supported Jan. 23 its October motion for judgment (see 2410250044) over the government’s opposition (see 2412260034). It again said its products aren’t covered by the relevant antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders -- or, alternatively, if the orders are ambiguous, the Commerce Department must conduct an analysis of k(1) factors (Cambridge Isotope Laboratories v. United States, CIT # 23-00080).

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

Exporter Nagase & Co. and the U.S. settled all claims in Nagase's suit challenging the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on glycine from Japan. As a result, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed the exporter's appeal of the AD review (Nagase & Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1008).

Importer Eteros Technologies asked the Court of International Trade for an expedited briefing schedule in its suit alleging that CBP retaliated against the company's executives after the company received a favorable ruling at the Court of International Trade (see 2501300018). Eteros said a speedy resolution of the case is needed "to resolve the legal uncertainties created by CBP’s defiance of this Court’s Article III powers and the reach of its national jurisdiction" and its "prior judgments and orders" (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, CIT # 25-00036).

No lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade.

Countervailing duty petitioner Nucor Corp. will appeal a Court of International Trade case on whether the Commerce Department can countervail three debt-to-equity infusions made to exporter KG Dongbu Steel Co. in the 2019 CVD review on corrosion-resistant steel products from South Korea. In the case, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce couldn't countervail the D/E swaps after previously refusing to do so in the prior CVD reviews, without finding a mistake of fact or analysis (see 2407030073). The judge then upheld the agency's decision not to countervail the restructurings on remand, finding that the evidence didn't support finding that the South Korean government pressured non-governmental institutions to take part in debt restructuring (see 2501170044) (KG Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00047).