The petitioner in an antidumping duty case supported its motion for summary judgment Jan. 31 by saying that, since the passage of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, the Commerce Department is no longer required to consider accuracy when setting antidumping margins. On the same day, an exporter and several importers also fought opposition to their own motions for judgment (Cambria Company v. U.S., CIT # 23-00007).

The U.S. and antidumping petitioner Wind Tower Trade Coalition failed to show that the Commerce Department followed its standard "cost-smoothing" practice when it rejected respondent Marmen Energy's "product-specific plate costs as unreasonable," Marmen said in a Jan. 30 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Marmen v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1877).

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

Importer MCM Technologies on Jan. 30 dismissed its suit challenging CBP's denial of its protest regarding the classification of its pet identification tags. The importer said the tags, which are classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8302.49.4000, qualify for an exclusion from Section 301 tariffs under secondary subheading 9903.88.4800. Counsel for MCM Technologies declined to comment (MCM Technologies v. U.S., CIT # 22-00005).

Importer Nutricia North America will appeal a December Court of International Trade decision finding that the company's baby formula and vitamins should be classified as food and not as pharmaceutical products (see 2312050028). Nutricia will argue at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that its goods, which are meant as dietary supplements for people with disabilities or ailments, fit under duty-free heading 3004 for "mixed or unmixed products for therapeutic or prophylactic use" packaged for retail sale. CBP put the entries under heading 2106, dutiable at 6.4%, as "food preparations not elsewhere specified or included" (Nutricia North America v. United States, CIT # 16-00008).

Three importers of trailer wheels filed complaints in the Court of International Trade on Jan. 30 contesting the Commerce Department’s determination that their wheels were subject to antidumping and countervailing duties and the importers had attempted to evade them (Trailstar LLC v. U.S., CIT # 24-00021; Lionshead Specialty Tire and Wheel LLC v. U.S., CIT # 24-00020; Dexter Distribution Group LLC v. U.S., CIT # 24-00019).

Commerce incorrectly determined that discs, the inner structures of wheels, share the essential characteristics of wheels and are substantially the same products, an exporter said to the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 30 motion for judgment (Asia Wheel Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00143).

Importer Scottsdale Tobacco launched a case at the Court of International Trade to contest CBP's denial of its drawback claim on its Canadian-origin paper-wrapped cigarettes. Filing a complaint on Jan. 30, the importer said its drawback claim "met the requirements" for a substitution unused merchandise drawback of the federal excise taxes it paid, since it exported the cigarettes from Florida less than five years after the relevant imports (Scottsdale Tobacco v. United States, CIT # 24-00022).

A whistleblower in a False Claims Act challenge, Brutus Trading, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take up its case so the court can clear up its own 2023 decision that found the government can voluntarily dismiss a qui tam FCA case brought by a whistleblower after not initially intervening in the case, and that the dismissal would be carried out under Rule 41(a) (Brutus Trading v. Standard Chartered, Sup. Ct. # 23-813).

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