Importer Target General Merchandise moved for summary judgment in a customs case on its LED lamps, breaking down its case into two tracks -- one regarding its goods imported in 2014 and the other on its imports entered in 2018 (Target General Merchandise v. United States, CIT # 15-00069).

A Thai truck wheel exporter, which brought a case against the Commerce Department last year regarding the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on Chinese truck wheels, said June 18 that petitioners were just trying to challenge the Commerce Department’s “misinterpretation of the plain language of the scope” (Asia Wheel Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00143).

Although the Court of International Trade rejected the International Trade Commission’s analysis in its affirmative injury determination regarding boxed mattresses from various Asian countries as “mathematical obfuscation and statistical chicanery,” it didn’t remand like it should have, an exporter told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 21 (CVB, Inc. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1504).

On June 17, a convicted smuggler of dangerously bright vehicle headlights asked the Court of International Trade, on behalf of both himself and the U.S., for another three-month extension to continue negotiating the terms of a stipulated judgment in a customs penalty case (U.S. v. Chu-Chiang "Kevin" Ho, CIT # 19-00102).

Defending the Commerce Department’s continued denial on remand of a canned foods importer’s Section 232 requests (see 2404020047), the U.S. said that the importer can submit new requests if domestic producers really can’t meet that importer’s needs (Seneca Foods Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00243).

The Court of International Trade on June 18 issued an order regarding the bench trial, set for Oct. 21, in a customs case brought by importer Cozy Comfort Co. on its wearable blanket, the Comfy. To prepare for the trial, Judge Stephen Vaden set a pretrial conference for Sept. 19 and told the parties to conduct a "good faith attempt to settle this matter and avoid trial" (Cozy Comfort Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00173).

The Commerce Department ignored the rulings in past cases when it reached de facto and de jure specificity findings regarding two broadly used Korean government programs, a Korean steel exporter said in a motion for judgment June 17 (POSCO v. U.S., CIT # 24-00006).

The Court of International Trade in a confidential June 18 decision sustained parts and remanded parts of the Commerce Department's second review of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. The court gave the parties until June 25 to review the confidential information in the decision (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. U.S., CIT # 19-00069).

Importer Vecoplan on June 17 dismissed one of its customs cases at the Court of International Trade regarding the classification of its grinding machines (Vecoplan v. United States, CIT # 20-00106).

The U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit scheduled oral argument for Sept. 16 at 9:30 a.m. on the two consolidated petitions for review challenging the constitutionality of the federal TikTok ban, said a clerk’s order June 17. TikTok and ByteDance challenge the ban on four constitutional grounds (see 2406070023). Their petition seeks a declaratory judgment that the ban violates the Constitution. It also seeks an order enjoining U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland from enforcing it (TikTok v. Merrick Garland, D.C. Cir. # 24-1113).