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

The trade court asked both parties in a case for supplemental briefing addressing whether note 3 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule’s section XVI should be applied to a supermodule that goes into power plants. The U.S. claims that the product should be analyzed under note 2, which it said was mutually exclusive with note 3; the importer, HyAxiom, advocates for interpretation under note 3 (HyAxiom v. U.S., CIT # 21-00057).

A number of Canadian lumber exporters moved for judgment upon the agency record in a softwood lumber case April 5. So did defendant-intervenors led by a domestic petitioner group, which said that the Commerce Department should have subtracted countervailing duty costs from the exporters’ U.S. prices (Government of Canada v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00187).

Importer Cambridge Isotope Laboratories told the Court of International Trade April 9 that following consultations with petitioner Committee for Fair Trade in Ammonium Sulfate, it has filed a new changed circumstances review request with the Commerce Department (Cambridge Isotope Laboratories v. U.S., CIT # 23-00080).

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

The U.S. on April 9 requested that the Court of International Trade not allow plaintiffs to add a new party in a case contesting the final results of the Commerce Department's fourth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel from Italy (ArcelorMittal Tubular Products v. U.S., CIT # 24-00039).

An exporter of vehicle side bars said April 8 that Section 301 tariff exclusions shouldn't necessarily be considered princpal use provisions, but should instead be analyzed as either principal use, eo nomine or actual use provisions on a case-by-case basis because no published guidance singles out a specific method (Keystone Automotive Operations v. U.S., CIT # 21-00215).

On April 8, an importer sought to withdraw its motion to compel the government to give it certain unredacted documents and the addresses of several former CBP employees “relevant” to its case (see 2310160061) (Lutron Electronics Co. v. U.S.​​​​, CIT # 22-00264).

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

Headphone or speaker retail display shelves imported by Fasteners for Retail aren't covered by an antidumping and countervailing duty orders on prepackaged boltless steel shelving units from China, the Commerce Department said in a March 29 scope ruling. Among other things, the display shelves aren't shelving units -- they are only decks, or parts of shelves, it said.