U.S. importer Water Pik will avoid Section 301 duties on its electromechanical oral hygiene devices from China after arguing that CBP should have classified them under a different Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading (Water Pik v. United States, CIT # 23-00083).

Antidumping petitioner Edsal Manufacturing Co. filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on June 4 contesting the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale from India. Edsal said Commerce erred in accepting untimely information from exporter Triune Technofab regarding the calculation of the exporter's constructed value profit (Edsal Manufacturing Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00087).

The Commerce Department wrongly attributed two unrelated entities to an Indian glycine exporter and hit it with adverse facts available for not providing those two companies’ financial information, the exporter said June 3. It also alleged that the department failed to notify it of any deficiencies in its responses (Kumar Industries v. U.S., CIT # 23-00263).

In a Swiss watch classification case ongoing since 2018, the U.S. argued May 30 that the motion for judgment filed by the watches’ importer should be dismissed for lack of proof. Alternatively, it asked its own cross-motion for judgment be granted because the importer’s watches with gold alloy cases don’t fit under its preferred heading, as that heading, which covers watches with cases made of precious metals, specifically excludes gold (Ildico Inc. v. U.S., CIT #s 18-00136, -00076).

All plaintiffs filed a joint reply to the U.S. May 31 in a case regarding the number of Chinese-origin parts required for an entire wheel to be considered of Chinese origin -- rims, discs, or both -- under an antidumping duty order on steel trailer wheels (Asia Wheel v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00096).

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

The U.S. on May 31 opposed U.S. manufacturer Deer Park Glycine's bid to complete the record in a scope ruling case on calcium glycinate by including a scope ruling application from a separate proceeding. The government said a scope ruling application wasn't submitted during "this segment of the administrative proceeding" being challenged at the Court of International Trade, and the Commerce Department didn't "rely on it in reaching its determination not to initiate another scope inquiry regarding a product that had just been the subject of a final scope ruling" (Deer Park Glycine v. United States, CIT # 24-00016).

The U.S. supported its cross-motion for judgment (see 2402160055) against an exporter’s reply (see 2404100071) May 29 in a case regarding the classification of automobile side bars. It again pointed out that the bars are principally used as steps, not side protective attachments, and argued that the plaintiffs weren’t engaging with the merits of the case (Keystone Automotive Operations v. U.S., CIT # 21-00215).

A Chinese cabinet exporter, alleging that the Commerce Department unlawfully rejected its ministerial error comment on a review’s final results “because the error was present in the Preliminary Results as well,” filed a motion for judgment May 29 (The Ancientree Cabinet Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00262).

Importer Amoena USA Corp. filed a complaint on May 31 at the Court of International Trade contesting CBP's classification of its mastectomy brassieres under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6212.10.90.20, as "other brassieres of manmade fiber," dutiable at 16.9% (Amoena USA Corp. v. United States, CIT # 20-00101).