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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 30 issued its mandate in an antidumping duty scope case from importers Smith-Cooper International and Sigma after denying a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. The importers petitioned for a rehearing of the court's March decision finding the term "butt-weld" to be ambiguous and that the Commerce Department was right to find steel branch outlets to be covered by an AD order on butt-weld pipe fittings from China (see 2503060073). Judge Timothy Dyk dissented in that three-judge decision, finding that the agency erred by refusing to properly consider the regular industry definition of the term (Vandewater International v. United States, Fed. Cir. #s 23-1093, -1141).

Importer Mitsubishi Power Americas will appeal a Court of International Trade decision from April 29 on the classification of the company's catalyst blocks, according to a notice of appeal. The trade court said the catalyst blocks were filters or purifiers and properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8421 and not as "other" catalytic reactors under heading 3815 (see 2504300067). Mitsubishi had requested Section 301 exclusions for its products but the importer failed to specify a particular HTS heading for the exclusion. However, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's exclusion that would apply to the products didn't actually cover Mitsubishi's goods, but even if had, the exclusion was drafted to cover products under heading 3815, the court said (Mitsubishi Power Americas, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00573).

The U.S. and defendant-intervenor Wind Tower Trade Coalition each pushed back against exporter CS Wind Malaysia’s challenges to a 2021-22 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on utility scale wind towers from Malaysia (CS Wind Malaysia v. United States, CIT # 24-00079, -00150).

Pea protein exporters and an importer said May 27 the International Trade Commission is wrongly attempting to create a new legal standard for determining the existence of critical circumstances (NURA USA v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00182).

The Court of International Trade gave plaintiffs in the two successful challenges to President Donald Trump's tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act more time to respond to the government's motion to stay the trade court's decision to vacate Trump's executive orders imposing the tariffs (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).

No lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade.

Importer King Maker Marketing on May 29 said it will appeal a Court of International Trade decision issued earlier this month finding that a product is "imported" for duty drawback purposes when it's admitted into a foreign-trade zone and not when entered for domestic consumption (see 2505150038). The trade court said the definition of "importation" found in both the dictionary and Supreme Court precedent distinguishes importation from entry, adding that when Congress passed the current drawback statute, it specifically decided that the five-year period in which to make a drawback claims runs from the date of importation and not the date of entry. Due to the ruling, King Maker's case challenging the rejection of its claims for substitution unused merchandise drawback was tossed as untimely (King Maker Marketing v. United States, CIT # 24-00134).

Importer APS Auto Parts Specialist on May 28 dismissed two of its Court of International Trade cases seeking Section 301 exclusions. In both cases, APS challenged CBP's denial of its protest claiming that its steel side protective attachment auto parts of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8708.29.5060 qualify for Section 301 tariff exclusions under secondary subheading 9903.88.45. Counsel for APS didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (APS Auto Parts Specialist v. United States, CIT #s 21-00233, -00268).

Importer AM Stone & Cabinets May 22 sought dismissal of one of its challenges to Commerce Department administrative reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on quartz countertops. Its case had argued that Commerce wrongly hit it with adverse facts available to determine that its products were made in China, not Malaysia (see 2501170048) (AM Stone & Cabinets v. United States, CIT # 24-00243).