The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky on July 9 denied a U.S. defense manufacturer's motion to dismiss allegations that it criminally smuggled weapons by selling drawings of a rare earth permanent magnet used in F/A-18 Super Hornets to China (U.S. v. Quadrant Magnetics, LLC, W.D. Ky. # 3:22-CR-88-DJH).

Countervailing duty petitioner Rebar Trade Action Coalition said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has the authority to reinstate the Commerce Department's original determination attributing subsidies received by an exporter's cross-owed input supplier to the exporter itself (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1431).

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

The government told the Court of International Trade that importer Precision Components' low-carbon steel blanks fall within the scope of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China. Filing a reply brief on July 12, the U.S. said Precision conceded that its blanks described in the 2023 scope ruling request are plainly covered by a 2020 ruling similarly finding the blanks to fall under the scope of the order (Precision Components v. United States, CIT # 23-00218).

A domestic producer of boltless steel shelving units brought a complaint to the Court of International Trade on July 11 arguing that the Commerce Department had wrongly refused to use the surrogate it suggested in an antidumping duty investigation (Edsal Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00108).

Antidumping petitioner Lumimove, doing business as WPC Technologies, challenged four elements of the Commerce Department's review of the AD order on strontium chromate from Austria covering entries in 2021-22, in a July 11 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Lumimove v. U.S., CIT # 24-00105).

The U.S. filed its own supplemental brief July 9 in response to a recent Supreme Court decision, FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, arguing that an advocacy group and plaintiff in a forced labor case (see 2402230046) lacks standing to bring its suit to the Court of International Trade (International Rights Advocates v. Alejandro Mayorkas, CIT # 23-00165).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate in a countervailing duty investigation on ripe olives from Spain. In its decision, the appellate court said the Court of International Trade was wrong to impose a 50% threshold in determining whether demand for a processed agricultural product is "substantially dependent" on its raw upstream iteration for purposes of assigning countervailing duties (see 2405200045). Judges Sharon Prost, William Bryson and Leonard Stark said that the Commerce Department shall receive "considerable discretion" in determining whether such demand is substantially dependent due to the general nature of the terms "substantially dependent" (Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1162).

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

Customs broker Seko Customs Brokerage continued its bid for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against CBP's move to temporarily suspend Seko from the Entry Type 86 pilot and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program, filing a brief in support of the motions at the Court of International Trade on July 10 (Seko Customs Brokerage v. United States, CIT # 24-00097).