Cable importer Cyber Power Systems disagreed Aug. 1 that its products are general “power cables” rather than “telecommunications cables,” saying in response to a U.S. cross-motion for judgment that its preferred classification is presumptively correct. The importer also raised a separation of powers argument (Cyber Power Systems (USA) v. United States, CIT # 21-00200).

The U.S. again said July 30 that “rough” butt-weld pipe fittings were distinct from “unfinished” ones, supporting a Commerce Department redetermination on remand (see 2505050031) (Tube Forgings of America, Inc. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00231).

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

A group of exporters, led by Hangzhou Five Star Aluminum, filed a stipulation of dismissal at the Court of International Trade on Aug. 6 in their case against the Commerce Department's administrative review of the countervailing duty order on aluminum foil from China for the 2022 review period. The companies brought the case to contest Commerce's use of UNComtrade data as the benchmark for assessing the adequacy of remuneration for the provision of aluminum ingot. The exporters also challenged the use of adverse facts available in relation to the respondents' alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. Counsel for the companies didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (Hangzhou Five Star Aluminum v. United States, CIT # 24-00231).

Solar cell importers Trina Solar and Astronergy dismissed three cases at the Court of International Trade on Aug. 6 challenging President Donald Trump's decision from his first administration to revoke a Section 201 tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels. In a separate case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sustained Trump's decision, finding that the president didn't clearly misconstrue the statute when he revoked the tariff exclusion (see 2311130031). Jonathan Fried, counsel for Trina and Astronergy, said in an email that the companies "decided to dismiss their actions rather than relitigate the issues" settled by the Federal Circuit (Trina Solar (U.S.) v. U.S, CIT #s 22-00306, -00321) (Astronergy Solar v. U.S., CIT # 22-00308).

CBP improperly classified importer Air Distribution USA's shisha molasses, also known as "hookah tobacco," as a type of "smoking tobacco" and erroneously subjected the shisha molasses to federal excise taxes on "pipe tobacco," Air Distribution argued in a complaint last month at the Court of International Trade (Air Distribution USA v. United States, CIT # 25-00063).

The Commerce Department stuck by its selection of comparable merchandise for chlorinated isocyanurates (chlorinated isos) in its Aug. 4 remand results at the Court of International Trade. However, the agency swapped the surrogate labor data it used in the 2021-22 administrative review of the AD order on Chinese chlorinated isos, which led to small downward adjustments in the AD rates for the two mandatory respondents (Bio-Lab, Inc. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00024).

The Commerce Department on Aug. 4 switched from a "tier two" to a "tier three" benchmark in calculating the benefit received by countervailing duty respondent JSC Apatit for the provision of natural gas for less than adequate remuneration. Responding to the Court of International Trade's remand order in a case on the 2020-21 administrative review of the CVD order on phosphate fertilizer from Russia, Commerce adjusted Apatit's CVD rate from 28.50% to 49.64% (Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00239).

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

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 1 dismissed two cases from importer ArcelorMittal Long Products Canada for lack of prosecution. The cases were placed on the customs case management calendar but weren't removed at the "expiration of the applicable period of time of removal." The lawsuits concerned CBP's denial of its protest claiming its steel products should be excluded from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs. Counsel for the importer didn't immediately respond to requests for comment (ArcelorMittal Long Products Canada v. United States, #s 21-00342, -00343).