Importer Maple Leaf Marketing filed a stipulation of dismissal in its customs suit on the classification of boronized steel tubing. Before the dismissal, the case served as a forum for the government to argue that it could assert counterclaims in customs cases. The U.S. moved to redesignate its counterclaim as a defense, which the Court of International Trade granted after finding that nowhere in Congress' scheme on the classification of goods does the legislative body explicitly let the government assert a counterclaim challenging CBP's classification (see 2306140053). The original counterclaim said that the steel tubes, originally classified by CBP as duty-free U.S. goods returned after repairs, are subject to Section 301 tariffs and correctly classified as unfinished steel tubes (Maple Leaf Marketing v. United States, CIT # 20-03839).

A U.S. petitioner on March 18 again argued that a Dutch preserved mushrooms exporter “significantly impeded” a Commerce Department antidumping duty investigation and that the agency shouldn't have granted the exporter a de minimis AD rate (Giorgio Foods, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00133).

CBP reversed its finding that four importers evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China on remand at the Court of International Trade. Submitting its remand results on March 20, CBP said that since the Commerce Department reversed its covered merchandise scope decision in a separate trade court case, the importers' goods no longer constitute "covered merchandise" and thus did not evade the AD/CVD orders (Far East American v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00213).

Correction: Indian exporter Kumar appealed a decision sustaining the Commerce Department's assignment of a 13.61% adverse facts available antidumping rate to the exporter (see 2403140027).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 20 granted Indian exporter Kumar Industries' motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal of an antidumping duty case. Kumar had appealed a decision sustaining the Commerce Department's assignment of a 13.61% adverse facts available AD rate to the exporter based on its "inadequate explanations" regarding one of its partners' ownership interests in two unnamed companies (see 2311270005). The rate came as part of the first review of the AD order on glycine from India, which found that Kumar prevented Commerce from conducting a proper affiliate analysis. Kumar withdrew the appeal last month, saying it "elected not to further pursue its appeal" (see 2402260033) (Kumar Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1293).

The U.S. on March 18 opposed a motion to consolidate an exporter’s two Court of International Trade cases contesting two Commerce Department scope rulings. Those rulings found the exporter’s calcium glycinate was covered by antidumping and countervailing duty orders on glycine from India, Japan, Thailand and China (Deer Park Glycine, LLC v. U.S., CIT #s 23-00238, 24-00016).

The Commerce Department was wrong to find that an importer's “unfinished” carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings were different than its “rough” fittings because that distinction was not in the language of the relevant scope order, two petitioners said in a March 18 motion for judgment (NORCA Industrial Company, LLC v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00231).

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed a lawsuit from clothing company Smart Apparel (U.S.) that accused Nordstrom of breaching a contract when it canceled orders from Smart Apparel that were suspected of being made with forced labor (Smart Apparel (U.S.) v. Nordstrom, W.D. Wash. # 23-01754).

Russian exporters PhosAgro, Apatit and Industrial Group Phosphorite will appeal a January Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's use of exporter PhosAgro's profit before tax number instead of its gross profit mark when calculating the company's phosphate mining rights benefit (see 2401190037). The exporter will take the case contesting the countervailing duty investigation on phosphate fertilizers from Russia to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In its decision, the trade court rejected PhosAgro's clam that its gross profit number "more accurately reflects the commercial reality" of its pricing process (The Mosaic Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00117).

A South Korean exporter of certain corrosion-resistant steel products filed another complaint March 19 in the Court of International Trade saying that a 2014 to 2018 debt-to-equity restructuring led by the Korean government assisted its previous owners, not its current ones (KG Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00056).