Two monosodium glutamate (MSG) importers told the Court of International Trade in a July 30 complaint that the Commerce Department unlawfully subjected MSG entries from Malaysia that used Chinese glutamic acid to the antidumping duty order on MSG from China retroactively (CPF Legacy v. United States, CIT # 25-00149).

The U.S. responded July 25 to importer Prysmian Cables and Systems' remaining claims challenging the Commerce Department’s rejection of the importer’s Section 232 requests, saying a number of them had already been covered by the Court of International Trade's dismissal. It also defended Commerce's ability to deny exclusion requests for national security purposes (Prysmian Cables and Systems USA v. U.S., CIT # 24-00101).

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

The Court of International Trade on July 29 signed off on importer Briggs & Stratton's dismissal of its case on CBP's assessment of excess duties, taxes and fees on its engine parts and components (see 2301250071). The importer filed its notice of dismissal last month (see 2506270029). Briggs & Stratton brought the suit to argue that the duties were added due to clerical and technical errors. The case was previously dismissed for lack of prosecution, though the trade court re-added it to the court's docket after the company asked for relief (see 2502040015) Counsel for Briggs & Stratton didn't respond to a request for comment on the reason for dismissal (Briggs & Stratton Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00014).

In a July 25 complaint to the Court of International Trade, Chinese xanthan gum exporter Deosen Biochemical (Ordos) alleged the Commerce Department’s 10th antidumping duty review of its products wrongly assigned it partial adverse facts available for a sales date disagreement (Deosen Biochemical v. United States, CIT # 25-00145).

Defending a motion for reconsideration, the U.S. said again July 23 that fish oil importer BASF Corp.’s products should have been classified as “food preparations” and that the Court of International Trade defined “fish extracts” too broadly. The trade court failed to address several U.S. points raised during litigation, so the standard for reconsideration has been met, it claimed (BASF Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 13-00318).

The Court of International Trade on July 29 lifted its statutory injunction on the liquidation of exporter Siderca's entries of oil country tubular goods from Argentina after importers led by Tenaris Bay City asked the court to lift its injunction. Judge Claire Kelly noted that although the importers appealed the trade court's decision sustaining the Commerce Department's dumping determination, the appeal only concerns the agency's initiation of the investigation and the "continued existence" of the antidumping duty order (Tenaris Bay City Inc. v. United States, CIT # 22-00343).

Countervailing duty petitioner U.S. Epoxy Resin Producers Ad Hoc Coalition on July 25 filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade challenging the Commerce Department's CVD investigation into epoxy resins from South Korea. The six-count complaint challenged, among other things, Commerce's alleged failure to use world price benchmarks in calculating the benefit from the provision of epichlorohydrin, a key epoxy resin input, and the agency's decision not to investigate the provision of certain chemical inputs for less than adequate remuneration (U.S. Epoxy Resin Producers Ad Hoc Coalition v. U.S., CIT # 25-00147).

The U.S. filed its reply briefs in a pair of appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on whether challenges to the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act belong in the Court of International Trade. Responding to arguments from the State of California and various members of the Blackfeet Nation indigenous tribe, the government said the case "arises out of" President Donald Trump's executive orders implementing the tariffs and the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, giving CIT exclusive jurisdiction under Section 1581(i) (State of California v. Trump, 9th Cir. # 25-3493) (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th Cir. # 25-2717).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 28 issued its mandate in a case on the 2018-19 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Italian pasta, remanding the review to the Court of International Trade (see 2506050021). The court said Commerce failed to account for the Food and Drug Administration's "mandated rounding rules on the protein content listed on the label" of U.S. pasta and the "different nitrogen-to-protein conversion factors used in calculating protein content" in the U.S. and Italy in comparing Italian and American products. Judges Alan Lourie, Alvin Schall and Kara Stoll said the agency improperly prioritized "transparency" over its statutory duty to compare physically identical products in an antidumping duty review (La Molisana v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2060)