The Court of International Trade on March 11 granted importer Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co.'s motion to voluntarily dismiss 12 of its customs suits. The voluntary dismissal bid comes after the importer lost a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case on the classification of its textile gloves with a plastic coating on the palm and fingers (see 2312060028). The appellate court said the gloves are classified as gloves under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 6116, not as articles of plastics under heading 3926 (Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co v. U.S., CIT # 16-00036, -00040, -00044, -00149, -00151, -00152, -00153, -00166, 17-00001, -00003, -00004 and -00098).

In a March 8 brief, antidumping and countervailing duty petitioners argued that their case raises an “important issue of first impression for this Court” because it asks whether CBP’s Office of Rulings and Regulations is allowed to reverse evidence-based evasion determinations made at the conclusion of CBP Trade Remedy Law Enforcement Directorate investigations (American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance v. U.S., CIT # 23-00140).

The government was right to say that a Chinese brick importer’s magnesia alumina graphite bricks were subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on magnesia carbon bricks from China, a petitioner argued in a case regarding the quantity of alumina needed to exempt magnesia alumina graphite bricks from duties (Fedmet Resources v. U.S., CIT # 23-00117).

The language of AD/CVD orders on steel wheels from China doesn't prevent the Commerce Department from conducting a substantial transformation analysis on wheels that only have one Chinese-origin component out of two, the U.S. said in a March 8 brief opposing a plaintiff’s motion for judgment (Asia Wheel v. U.S., CIT # 23-00096).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on March 12 affirmed a federal D.C. court's dismissal of Venezuelan national Samark Jose Lopez Bello's suit against his designation as a narcotics trafficker under the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (Samark Jose Lopez Bello v. Andrea M. Gacki, D.C. Cir. # 21-01727).

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

DOJ attorney Tara Hogan submitted a letter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit correcting a statement she made during March 7 oral argument in a countervailing duty case on ripe olives from Spain (Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1162).

The Court of International Trade in a confidential March 11 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's final results of the sixth review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. In a letter to the litigants, Judge Richard Eaton said he intends to issue a public version of the opinion "in the near future," giving parties until March 18 to review the confidential information in the matter (Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 19-00144).

The Court of International Trade released its questions ahead of March 19 oral arguments in a case on the 2019-21 review of the antidumping duty order on Indian quartz countertops. Judge Mark Barnett asked a host of questions pertaining to the Commerce Department's filing deadlines (Cambria Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00007).

Honeywell, an importer of chordal, radial and web brake segments used in aircraft wheel and brake assemblies, said in a March 5 motion for judgment that its goods were classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8803 rather than heading 6307, as CBP ruled (Honeywell International Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 17-00256).