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

Opposing the United States’ and New Zealand's claims to the contrary (see 2506040068), environmental group Maui and Hector’s Dolphin Defenders NZ again said June 10 that New Zealand’s incidental bycatch regulations and its zero mortality rate goal for endangered Maui dolphins weren’t as strong as the U.S. regulations, rendering unsustainable a National Marine Fisheries Service comparability finding (Maui and Hector's Dolphin Defenders NZ v. National Marine Fisheries Service, CIT # 24-00218).

An individual importer, Ricardo Vega, will receive refunds for a Porsche imported in 2023, according to a stipulated judgment filed at the Court of International Trade on June 17. Similarly, importers Yellowbird Enterprises and Vantage Point Services will receive refunds for duties paid on a Jaguar also entered in 2023.

Opposing the Commerce Department’s continued determination on remand that "rough" carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China that were processed into finished fittings in Vietnam weren't of Chinese origin (see 2505050031), domestic producers Tube Forgings of America and Mills Iron Works again argued that “rough” pipe fittings are the same as “unfinished” ones (Tube Forgings of America, Inc. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00231).

The Court of International Trade on June 17 let exporter Toyo Kohan Co. amend its complaint in an antidumping duty case to add a claim against the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test to detect "masked" dumping in light of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision rejecting Commerce's use of the test. Judge Jane Restani said the CAFC decision "fundamentally shifted the legal standard controlling" the agency's use of the test, meaning "justice requires" the exporter be allowed to raise its claim against the test.

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

The importer seeking class certification at the Court of International Trade to obtain refunds for tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act voluntarily dismissed its case June 16. Counsel for the importer didn't respond to a request for comment (Chapter1 v. United States, CIT # 25-00097).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 13 issued its mandate in the lead case on the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test in its process for detecting "masked" dumping. In the decision, the appellate court said Commerce can't use the test when the "underlying data is not normally distributed, equally variable, and equally and sufficiently numerous" (see 2504220030). The court said it's "unreasonable" to use the test when it's applied to data that doesn't satisfy basic statistical assumptions. As a result of the ruling, Commerce opened a public comment period to explore alternatives to using the test (Marmen v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1877).

The U.S. last week filed a supplemental brief regarding its motion to dismiss importer Houston Shutters' Section 1581(i) case at the Court of International Trade against the Commerce Department's failure to open a changed circumstances review of antidumping duty and countervailing duty determinations on wood moldings and millwork products from China." In the brief, the government discussed a 2010 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Trustees in Bankruptcy of North American Rubber Thread Co. v. U.S., which the U.S. says supports dismissal of the suit for lack of jurisdiction (Houston Shutters v. United States, CIT # 24-00193).

The Commerce Department erred in including importer GameChange Solar's off-grid solar charging modules in the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on Chinese solar cells, the importer argued in a motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade last week. GameChange argued that Commerce "unlawfully" said its goods don't fit under the orders' exclusions for consumer goods or off-grid crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels (GameChange Solar v. United States, CIT # 24-00174).