An importer filed Aug. 21 its long-delayed motion for judgment in its test case alleging its Chinese-origin selective catalytic reduction catalysts had wrongly been assessed Section 301 duties. The catalysts were misclassified by CBP as centrifuges instead of “reaction initiators, reaction accelerators and catalytic preparations, not elsewhere specified or included,” it said (Mitsubishi Power Americas v. U.S., CIT #21-00573).

Antidumping duty petitioner the Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations on Aug. 22 moved to file an amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a case on the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test to detect "masked" dumping. The committee filed the brief in response to arguments from amici led by the Canadian government, which invoked various academic literature on the use of the test (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1556).

Correction: The U.S. brought a complaint against a tire distribution company Aug. 20, seeking payment of a $55,882.98 penalty for the importer’s initial failure, in 2019 and 2020, to pay cash deposits for two tire entries (U.S. v. Franco Tire Distribution Inc., CIT # 24-00161) (see 2408210038).

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

In defense of its own motion for judgment (see 2405020062) and opposing the government’s counterclaim, an importer again argued that the U.S. can’t counterclaim to reclassify an entry to increase the amount of duty owed on it higher than the rate initially assessed by CBP. Such a counterclaim lacks a cause of action, it said (BASF Corp. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 13-00318).

Importer Seneca Foods Corp. filed a notice of supplemental authority at the Court of International Trade on Aug. 21, claiming that a recent Section 232 exclusion request denial from the Commerce Department is relevant to the resolution of its case (Seneca Foods Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00243).

Importer Pitts Enterprises, doing business as Dorsey Intermodal, told the Court of International Trade that the Commerce Department illicitly turned the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on Chinese chassis and subassemblies thereof into orders covering parts of chassis. Filing a motion for judgment on Aug. 21, Dorsey said the entry of Chinese components in "separate, independent shipments" are "straightforwardly" not covered "unassembled subassemblies" (Pitts Enterprises v. United States, CIT # 24-00030).

In response to two motions for judgment (see 2402020054 and 2404020054) in a case involving an anti-circumvention inquiry on Vietnamese plywood, a petitioner argued the proceeding wasn’t flawed and that untimely new information provided was properly rejected (Shelter Forest International Acquisition v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00144).

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

The U.S. brought a complaint against a tire distribution company Aug. 20, seeking payment of a $55,882.98 penalty for the importer’s initial failure, in 2019 and 2020, to pay cash deposits for two tire entries (United States v. Franco Tire Distribution Inc., CIT # 24-00161).