CBP improperly declined to accept the proper valuation of various iron and steel products imported by NOA Brands America, the importer argued in an April 10 complaint at the Court of International Trade (NOA Brands America v. United States, CIT # 23-00109).

In April 8 oral argument involving a large number of parties, Court of International Trade Judge Jane Restani said she thinks she knows how she’ll rule on a petitioner’s Tier 2 price benchmark question about whether Kazakh natural gas export prices are available to Russian purchasers (Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00239).

Disagreeing with exporter BASF, the U.S. argued April 7 that the exporter’s beta-carotene product Betatene had been properly classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule because it was used as a specific -- not general -- food additive, and its additives were used for more than just stable transportation or preservation (BASF Corporation v. United States, CIT Consol. # 12-00422).

The U.S. and importer Vecoplan filed a stipulated judgment at the Court of International Trade granting duty-free treatment to the importer's grinding machines. CBP initially classified the entries, which are described as "industrial size reduction machines that operate with a single shaft rotor with cutting inserts," under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8479.89.94. This subheading covers certain machines and mechanical appliances with individual functions and comes with a 2.5% duty rate. The parties agreed to classify the goods under duty-free subheading 8479.82.00, which covers "[m]ixing, kneading, crushing, grinding, screening, sifting, homogenizing, emulsifying or stirring machines" (Vecoplan v. United States, CIT # 20-00141).

Lumber exporter Fontaine asked the Court of International Trade to order the Commerce Department to issue a Timken notice "setting Fontaine's cash deposit rate at 0.00%," reiterating the agency's intent to exclude the company from the countervailing duty order on softwood lumber from Canada and directing CBP to refund Fontaine's CVD cash deposits (Fontaine v. United States, CIT # 19-00154).

The Court of International Trade on April 8 set aside the dismissal of a customs suit brought by Printing Textiles, doing business as Berger Textiles, which was dropped for lack of prosecution. Judge Mark Barnett re-added the case to the Customs Case Management Calendar after the importer said it overlooked the deadline in the case to remain on the calendar due to a "calendaring mistake." Berger said no material delay stems from this mistake and that the U.S. didn't oppose re-adding the case to the calendar. Berger's case concerns whether coated fabric imports were properly subject to antidumping duties (see 2303150073) (Printing Textiles v. United States, CIT # 23-00062).

Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) filed three reply briefs in a trio of related cases at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, all of which are looking to get the International Trade Commission to account for litigation excluding respondent Colakoglu from the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from Turkey in its assessment of whether the U.S. industry was injured (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, Fed. Cir. #s 24-2242, -2243, -2249).

An attorney for exporters China Manufacturers Alliance and Double Coin told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit they were dropping their argument that it was a legal error for the Commerce Department to consider only one of four statutory factors in determining government control. The attorney, James Durling, was questioned by the appellate court during April 7 oral argument on his remaining point -- that the department’s decision to reject the exporters’ separate rate applications wasn’t based on substantial evidence (China Manufacturers Alliance v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2391).

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

Importer GoLabs, doing business as GOTRAX, on April 4 dropped its customs suit at the Court of International Trade on the classification of its "hoverboards." The importer filed a complaint in February, alleging that dicycles with electric motors and gyroscopic balancing technology, marketed as hoverboards, are "children's cycles" and not "bicycles" (see 2502140057). The importer said the hoverboards fit under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9503.00.0090 and not subheading 8711.60.0050, which comes with a 25% Section 301 duty under secondary subheading 9903.88.02, as classified by CBP. John Peterson, counsel for GOTRAX, said the case will be refiled in a "week or so" due to a "minor jurisdictional glitch" (GoLabs Inc. v. United States, CIT # 25-00003).