The Commerce Department interpreted the scope of the antidumping duty order on cased pencils from China in a way that is "contrary to the plain language of its terms," importer School Specialty told the Court of International Trade in a June 28 complaint. The importer said the agency also misapplied the "substantial transformation test" in its scope ruling (School Specialty v. U.S., CIT # 24-00098).

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 27 struck an entry of appearance filed by counsel for Encore Wire Corp., terminating the company as a defendant in a case on the 2019-20 antidumping review of aluminum wire and cable. The court said that the entry of appearance for three Cassidy Levy attorneys -- Myles Getlan, James Ransdell and Chase Dunn -- was noncompliant and that the attorneys failed to file a corrected version of the entry (Repwire v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1933).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 27 per curiam order required litigants in an antidumping and countervailing duty scope case to file supplemental briefs (Worldwide Door Components v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1532) (Columbia Aluminum Products v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1534).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 26 text-only order granted the government's request for 30 more days to file its reply brief in a customs case from importer Blue Sky The Color of Imagination on the customs classification of calendar planners. The reply is now due Aug. 2 (Blue Sky The Color of Imagination v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1710).

Further information placed on the record during a remand shows importers evaded antidumping and countervailing duties on Chinese glycine by transshipping their product through Indonesia, a petitioner claimed June 26 before the Court of International Trade (Newtrend USA v. U.S., CIT # 22-00347).

The Commerce Department is attempting to skip the first step of analyzing whether a product is covered under antidumping and countervailing duty orders on “mouldings and millwork products” from China -- determining if the product is actually either a “moulding” or a “millwork product,” an importer said June 24 in support of its motion for judgment (see 2401290043) (Hardware Resources v. U.S., CIT # 23-00150).

Exporter Hindalco Industries told the Court of International Trade last week that the Commerce Department erred in finding that the provision of coal to the company below cost is de facto specific. Filing its motion for judgment, Hindalco added that in the case the court finds the supposed subsidy is specific, Commerce illicitly calculated the subsidy's benefit to the company (Hindalco Industries v. United States, CIT # 23-00260).

The Drug Enforcement Administration told CBP that it believes importer UniChem's entry of "7-keto dehydroepiandrosterone is a Schedule III anabolic steroid and its importation violates DEA regulations." As a result, DEA requested that CBP seize the entry on DEA's behalf, the U.S. told the Court of International Trade in a June 25 status report (UniChem Enterprises v. U.S., CIT # 24-00033).

The “vague and open-ended” language of a scope order on artist canvas from China makes the order unconstitutional, having caused the “absurd” result of levying antidumping duties on importers without advance notice, an importer told the Court of International Trade on June 24 in defense of its motion for judgment (see 2402270079) (Printing Textiles, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 23-00192).