CBP on Feb. 15 reversed its finding that importer Columbia Aluminum Products evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China (Columbia Aluminum Products v. United States, CIT # 19-00185).

An importer and plaintiff-intervenor in an ongoing case regarding Thai steel truck wheels said Feb. 13 that the Commerce Department was ignoring the plain language of a scope of the relevant antidumping and countervailing duty orders to find its products were in-scope (Asia Wheel Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00143).

The Court of International Trade on Feb. 13 dismissed an antidumping duty case brought by exporter Oman Fasteners for lack of prosecution. Mario Toscano, clerk of the court, said that no complaint was filed "within the period" laid out by 19 U.S.C. 1516a, which says an interested party may file a summons and complaint within 30 days of a determination from the Commerce Department. Oman Fasteners brought the suit to contest the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from Oman in which it received a zero percent dumping margin. No separate lawsuit was filed by the petitioner in the review, Mid Continent Steel & Wire (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT # 24-00008).

German exporter AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke will appeal a December Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Germany. The company will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where it will contest the decision to uphold Commerce's proposed quality code for sour service pressure vessel plate (see 2312210054). The court said Dillinger didn't make the "requisite showing to demonstrate that reconsideration is appropriate" after the court already rejected the claim (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, CIT # 17-00158).

In a complex case involving antidumping duties on Indian quartz countertops, a defendant-intervenor that represents Indian exporters on Feb. 9 again argued against the AD petitioner’s claim for a 161.56% dumping margin calculated for a review’s non-individually examined respondents (Cambria Company v. U.S., CIT # 23-00007).

The U.S. on Feb. 9 argued the Commerce Department correctly considered all relevant prior scope rulings in finding that an importer’s bricks are within the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on magnesia carbon bricks from China (Fedmet Resources v. U.S., CIT # 23-00117).

The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 8 confidential order sustained in part and remanded in part the Commerce Department's findings in an antidumping duty proceeding on thermal paper from Germany. In a letter, Judge Gary Katzmann gave the litigants until Feb. 12 to review the confidential information in the opinion ahead of issuing the public version of the decision (Mantra Americas v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00632).

Calendars are visual objects, not notebooks or weekly planners, the government said Feb. 12 in a tariff classification case contesting CBP’s classification of an importer’s weekly planners as “stationary products” rather than duty-free “calendars” (Blue Sky The Color of Imagination v. U.S., CIT # 21-00624).

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

While the U.S. remained neutral, a steel nail exporter on Feb. 8 called “moot” a petitioner’s motion to stay one antidumping duty appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit until the petitioner’s other interlocutory appeal had been heard (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1350).