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).

After four remands in the Court of International Trade (see 2312210054), a German exporter of steel used to transport corrosive materials filed its opening bid with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 21. The company, AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke, claimed the Commerce Department wrongly used one of its products’ selling prices as a substitute for its costs of production, which amounts to “circular reasoning" (AG Der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1498).

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

An importer of tubing for perforating guns said June 21 that its refund request was wrongly denied after CBP initially accepted its 2020 request for exclusion from Section 232 tariffs. The denial occurred because CBP claimed that the products’ Harmonized Tariff Schedule classification was wrong, even though the agency had said otherwise on three separate occasions, including at liquidation, it said (G&H Diversified Manufacturing v. U.S., CIT # 22-00130).

The government has “inexcusably failed to provide substantive responses and/or produce any documents whatsoever,” gun manufacturer Glock said in a June 20 motion asking the Court of International Trade to compel the U.S. to produce the information the importer sought in its first round of discovery (Glock v. U.S., CIT # 23-00046).

An importer on June 20 accused CBP of placing “wholly unrelated” lab tests on the record to support an evasion decision and illegally refusing to consider the scope ruling that importer sought from the Commerce Department. As a result, it said, the CBP’s final determination was unlawful (Vanguard Trading Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00253).

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

In a June 20 post-oral argument submission, a Turkish rebar exporter said the government is “misrepresenting" its argument by saying the exporter is claiming that any industry in Turkey can receive an industry registry certificate (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #23-00131).

Exporters Guizhou Tyre Co. and Aeolus Tyre Co. said in a June 20 reply brief that the U.S. ignored the manner in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said presumptions operate under the Federal Rules of Evidence (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2163).