CBP agreed to return the liquidation status of 830 softwood lumber entries of importer Fraserview Remanufacturing to unliquidated while it awaits further instructions from the Commerce Department on how to treat the entries following the relevant antidumping duty and countervailing duty proceedings. The U.S. and Fraserview filed a stipulation for entry of judgment at the Court of International Trade in the importer's case against CBP's erroneous designation of the entries as deemed liquidated (Fraserview Remanufacturing v. United States, CIT # 23-00063).

The government "mostly dodges" the arguments customs broker license exam taker Skeeter-Jo Stoute-Francois makes against four questions on the exam and "baselessly and repeatedly accuses" her of rewriting the challenged questions, counsel for Stoute-Francois argued in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The brief said the U.S. "advances a series of impermissible post hoc justifications, misconstrues the applicable standard of review, fails to address several of Plaintiff’s arguments, and improperly relies" on past CIT cases (Skeeter-Jo Stoute-Francois v. Janet Yellen, CIT # 24-00046).

In its opposition to a reconsideration request in a vehicle sidebar classification case, the U.S. “misleads” the court by claiming that exporter Keystone Automotives was attempting to relitigate its position. Actually, the exporter said, its request is “based on the standard of review of the tariff exclusion” Keystone had relied on in its initial arguments (Keystone Automotive Operations v. U.S., CIT # 21-00215).

Surety firm Aegis Security pushed back again (see 2410220026) on the U.S. lawsuit to recover unpaid duties from 2002. The long delay between liquidation and request for payment -- after CBP “likely lost the entry papers for multiple years” -- meant the U.S. could no longer reasonably expect anything from Aegis, it said (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 22-00327).

The Pentagon's response to Chinese lidar company Hesai Technology's claims against its designation as a Chinese military company shows that the department "has no evidence" and "made no finding" that the company is "in any way connected to the Chinese military," Hesai said in a brief at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Hesai Technology Co. v. United States, D.D.C. # 24-01381).

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on Jan. 30 in a case on the 2016-17 review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China. In its decision, CAFC said the Commerce Department failed to provide an "adequate explanation" regarding its treatment of overhead costs in coming up with the surrogate financial ratio (see 2412090028) (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1550).

The U.S. and a defendant-intervenor each filed a response Jan. 28 to Chinese steel rack exporter Nanjing Dongsheng Shelf Manufacturing, which is challenging the denial of a separate rate in an antidumping duty review due to a missed deadline. The defending parties said Dongsheng failed to show extraordinary circumstances justified its error (Nanjing Dongsheng Shelf Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00085).

Patent attorney Andrew Dhuey offered to appear as amicus curiae at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to defend Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden's decision rejecting an unopposed motion to redact certain confidential information from the merits decision on an AD/CVD injury determination. Dhuey, who is on the trade court's roster of pro bono counsel, said he would like to be appointed by CAFC to defend Vaden's decision, "arguing on behalf of the public interest in judicial transparency" (CVB, Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1504).

Petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire voluntarily dismissed its appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of an antidumping duty proceeding in light of the appellate court's decision in a related case rejecting the use of total adverse facts available against exporter Oman Fasteners (see 2501070084). In all, two appeals were filed -- one challenging the Court of International Trade's injunction on the collection of cash deposits at the AFA rate and another on the underlying AD proceeding itself. With the rejection of the AFA rate in the appeal on the injunction, Mid Continent dropped its separate appeal (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1350).