Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) filed three reply briefs in a trio of related cases at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, all of which are looking to get the International Trade Commission to account for litigation excluding respondent Colakoglu from the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from Turkey in its assessment of whether the U.S. industry was injured (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, Fed. Cir. #s 24-2242, -2243, -2249).

An attorney for exporters China Manufacturers Alliance and Double Coin told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit they were dropping their argument that it was a legal error for the Commerce Department to consider only one of four statutory factors in determining government control. The attorney, James Durling, was questioned by the appellate court during April 7 oral argument on his remaining point -- that the department’s decision to reject the exporters’ separate rate applications wasn’t based on substantial evidence (China Manufacturers Alliance v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2391).

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

Importer GoLabs, doing business as GOTRAX, on April 4 dropped its customs suit at the Court of International Trade on the classification of its "hoverboards." The importer filed a complaint in February, alleging that dicycles with electric motors and gyroscopic balancing technology, marketed as hoverboards, are "children's cycles" and not "bicycles" (see 2502140057). The importer said the hoverboards fit under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9503.00.0090 and not subheading 8711.60.0050, which comes with a 25% Section 301 duty under secondary subheading 9903.88.02, as classified by CBP. John Peterson, counsel for GOTRAX, said the case will be refiled in a "week or so" due to a "minor jurisdictional glitch" (GoLabs Inc. v. United States, CIT # 25-00003).

New York resident Shuangyang Li filed a stipulation of dismissal in his case challenging several questions on his customs broker license exam. Li argued that many of the questions were unfairly ambiguous, conflicting or lacking essential information, leading to his failure to pass (see 2411220049). Li received a 73.75% score on the exam, just shy of the 75% passing grade. Li didn't respond to a request for comment on the reason for the dismissal or nature of the stipulation (Shuangyang Li v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CIT # 24-00205).

Responding to a Court of International Trade request to discuss “the statutory scheme of who is eligible to apply for a separate rate,” wood moldings and millwork products exporters China Cornici and RaoPing said applicants shouldn’t need a suspended entry during the relevant review period (China Cornici Co. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #s 23-000216, -00217).

Importer Honeywell pushed back April 4 against a U.S. motion for rehearing after the Court of International Trade sided with it to find its precut radial, chordial and web fabric pieces, used in airplane brakes, were “parts of an aircraft” rather than “fabrics” (see 2501300051). The trade court hadn't misapplied the Harmonized Tariff Schedule's General Rules of Interpretation, it said (Honeywell International Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 17-00256).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on April 4 after issuing a decision finding that the Commerce Department's third factor for assessing a foreign government's de facto control over an exporter, which addresses the selection of management, doesn't require a link to export activities. The appellate court also said Commerce properly requires separate rate respondents to "carry a burden of persuasion to justify a separate rate," rejecting exporter Pirelli Tyre Co.'s claim that the agency shouldn't have conflated a rebuttable presumption with a requirement to carry a burden of persuasion (see 2502110030). The court found that Pirelli didn't rebut the presumption of foreign state control in the 2017-18 review of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China (Pirelli Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2266).

Importer Amcor Flexibles Singen GmbH filed a stipulated judgment at the Court of International Trade in its customs suit on the classification of its aluminum foil entries. The judgment said the goods are to be classified under duty-free Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7607.20.50, which covers other backed aluminum foil. CBP initially classified the goods under subheading 3921.90.40, which covers flexible products with textile components in which man-made fibers predominate by weight over any other single textile fiber. The product at issue is "20-micron aluminum foil, soft-temper, plain, bright side lacquer laminated to a 12-micron PET film" (Amcor Flexibles Singen GmbH v. United States, CIT # 16-00200).

Importer Scioto Valley Woodworking opposed April 2 a Commerce Department finding on remand (see 2501310016) that it had evaded antidumping and countervailing duties (American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance v. United States, CIT # 23-00140).