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

The Commerce Department was right to use Brazilian, not Mexican, labor cost data when constructing a value for two Chinese exporters of stainless steel kegs, the U.S. said July 22 in response to defendant intervenors’ comments on the department’s results of a review after a third remand (New American Keg v. U.S., CIT # 20-00008).

The Commerce Department wrongly called its own decision memoranda in other, similar proceedings “new factual information” that could be, and had been, “untimely raised,” a petitioner said in a July 22 brief -- six months after that petitioner relied on them in its own administrative filings (ArcelorMittal Tubular Products v. U.S., CIT # 24-00039).

A glycine exporter moved for judgment July 23 in a case charging that the Commerce Department unreasonably rejected its allegedly “duplicative” scope ruling application after a previous request, which the exporter argued lacked key information, resulted in a ruling it disagreed with (Deer Park Glycine v. U.S., CIT # 24-00016).

The U.S. objected to a Vietnamese pipe exporter's argument that the Commerce Department had arbitrarily rejected its questionnaire response for a barely missed deadline, saying the exporter had been given four deadline extensions and was repeatedly told by Commerce officials to file early (Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00248).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 24 denied exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe Co.'s petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc of the court's decision to include dual-stenciled pipe in the scope of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2181).

The U.S. on July 22 moved the Court of International Trade to dismiss Byungmin Chae's challenge to CBP's rejection of his appeal of a question on the April 2018 customs broker license exam. The Nebraska resident, who ultimately fell one question shy of a passing score, previously challenged his results on the exam, including to the U.S. Supreme Court, which denied rehearing (see 2401230031) (Byungmin Chae v. U.S., CIT # 24-00086).

The Court of International Trade in a confidential July 22 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's decision to continue using adverse facts available against countervailing duty respondent The Ancientree Cabinet Co. related to its alleged receipt of benefits under China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. Judge Richard Eaton said he intends to issue a public version of the decision "in the near future," giving the parties until July 29 to review the opinion for confidential information (Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co. v. U.S., CIT # 20-00110).

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

Canada-based Midwest-CBK's sales to U.S. customers weren't "for export" to the U.S. and therefore don't have a "transaction value" for the assignment of import duties, the company told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Filing a reply brief on July 19, Midwest-CBK said the goods should have been "appraised via deductive value" and that its goods were deemed liquidated since CBP didn't have an adequate basis to extend the liquidation of its entries (Midwest-CBK v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1142).