A U.S. mattress importer on Nov. 12 opposed the government’s motion to dismiss its challenge to the International Trade Commission’s critical circumstances determination on mattresses from Burma, saying that its questionnaire response in the ITC’s investigation was enough to give it standing at the Court of International Trade (Pay Less Here v. U.S., CIT # 24-00152).

The U.S. brief opposing exporter Koehler Oberkirch GmbH's petition for mandamus relief on the question of whether the government properly served the exporter relies on "case law of other circuits" and not the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Koehler argued. Filing a response brief on Nov. 12, the exporter said the "law of other jurisdictions does not determine legal error or a clear abuse of discretion in this Circuit" (In Re Koehler Oberkirch GmbH, Fed. Cir. # 25-106).

The Court of International Trade dismissed Byungmin Chae's second lawsuit challenging his results of the April 2018 customs broker license exam, finding that the suit is precluded by the Nebraska resident's first case challenging the test.

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

Mediation at the Court of International Trade resulted in a settlement of all issues in importer Valbruna Slater Stainless' suit on the Commerce Department's denials of its Section 232 steel tariff exclusion requests. Judge Leo Gordon served as mediator and told the court on Nov. 12 that the mediation settled the case (Valbruna Slater Stainless v. United States, CIT # 21-00027).

In a Nov. 8 cross-motion for summary judgment in a consolidated case that first began in 2015, the U.S. asked the Court of International Trade to rule big box store Target’s merchandise -- LED candles, string lights, table lights, nightlights, path lights and lanterns-- as “lamps” under Harmonized Tariff Schedule Chapter 94 instead of “electrical luminescent lights” under Chapter 85 (Target General Merchandise v. United States, CIT Consol. # 15-00069).

Importers Wego International Floors, Galleher Corp. and Galleher LLC will appeal a Court of International Trade case on the 2016-17 review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. The trade court sustained the Commerce Department's decision to weight average zero percent and adverse facts available antidumping rates to set the AD mark for the non-individually examined respondents (see 2409180044). CIT previously remanded Commerce's decision to use a simple average of the zero and AFA rates, instructing the agency to use a weighted average of the marks. The result was a 31.63% AD rate for the separate rate companies (Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 19-00144).

The Commerce Department wrongly determined in a scope ruling that an importer's pencils hadn’t been substantially transformed in the Philippines solely because a Chinese-origin input, wooden slats, were custom-manufactured for use in pencil production, that importer said in a motion for judgment Nov. 8 (School Specialty v. U.S., CIT # 24-00098).

The Commerce Department erred in finding that the South Korean government's provision of electricity below cost was de facto specific in the 2022 review of the countervailing duty order on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea, exporter Hyundai Steel Co. argued in a Nov. 12 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Hyundai added that Commerce violated the statute on specificity in CVD cases in relying on the "original electricity consumption data" for its de facto specificity finding (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00190).

CBP and an importer reached a settlement in four customs cases on the classification of the company's photoresists. The goods were classified by CBP under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 3707.90.32, covering certain chemical preparations for photographic uses, dutiable at 6.5%. The agency agreed to liquidate the entries as sensitizing emulsions under subheading 3707.10.00, dutiable at 3%. The cases were brought by Tokyo Ohka Kogyo America, formerly known as Ohka America, and cover hundreds of the company's entries (Ohka America v. U.S., CIT #s 04-00583, 05-00292) (Tokyo Ohka Kogyo America v. U.S., CIT #s 10-00243, 17-00067).