Petitioner Giorgio Foods on Sept. 8 said it will appeal a recent Court of International Trade decision regarding the antidumping duty investigation on Dutch mushrooms to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the decision, Judge M. Miller Baker said the Commerce Department permissibly picked Germany as the third country for determining AD respondent Prochamp's normal value, which ultimately led to a zero percent dumping margin for the respondent (see 2507160066). Specifically, Baker said the agency fully supported its efforts to account for the percentage of Prochamp's product sold to Germany that is actually resold in another country and, thus, its finding that Germany remained the best comparison market (Giorgio Foods v. United States, CIT # 23-00133).

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 3 sustained the Commerce Department's application of its quarterly cost methodology to analyze exporter Officine Tecnosider's sales during the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel plate from Italy. Judge Claire Kelly said Commerce adequately explained its approach, which stemmed from difficulties using Tecnosider's U.S. sales to analyze correlations between sales and costs of production, and why it "produces reasonable and reliable results."

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

Detroit Axle, the company challenging President Donald Trump's decision to eliminate the de minimis threshold on goods from China, moved to set aside the Court of International Trade's stay of its case pending the lead suit on tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The company said while the relief it's seeking initially overlapped with the relief sought by the plaintiffs in the lead tariff suit, that's "no longer the case" in light of Trump's recent executive order rescinding the de minimis threshold globally (Axle of Dearborn d/b/a Detroit Axle v. United States, CIT # 25-00091).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit refused to stay two cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The U.S. asked for a stay in both appeals, one brought by the State of California and the other by members of the Blackfeet Nation indigenous tribe, following the government's request for the Supreme Court to review a separate case on the tariffs.

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

The U.S. settled its case, which involved $5.8 million in unpaid duties and penalties against tire importer Katana Racing Inc. on Aug. 29, with more of the details appearing in a Sept. 3 filing. Katana agreed to pay $2.35 million (United States v. Katana Racing, CIT # 19-00125).

The U.S. asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to stay two appeals on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in light of the government's petition for writ of certiorari before the Supreme Court in a separate case on the tariffs. The U.S. said "it would be a waste of judicial resources for this Court to hear and decide this case before the Supreme Court has resolved the proceedings before it," in light of the "rapid schedule" proposed before the high court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's recent "unanimous ruling on jurisdiction."

The Court of International Trade ruled Aug. 13, in a decision made public Sept. 5, that exporter BASF Corp.’s food additive Betatene was properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 2106 as a dietary supplement.

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 3 dropped two cases on the applicability of Section 301 exclusions from its customs case management calendar for lack of prosecution. Both cases were placed on the calendar and not removed from it at the expiration of the "applicable period of time of removal." One case, brought by Warby Parker, was brought to contest CBP's denial of its protest over whether Section 301 duties apply to its frames and lenses classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9004.90.0000 and secondary subheading 9903.88.15 (see 2303070024). The other case, filed by MTD Products, was filed to contest CBP's denial of its protest claiming its gasoline engines of HTS subheading 8407.90.1020, free of duty, and secondary subheading 9903.88.02, should be exempt from Section 301 duties under secondary subheading 9903.88.12 (see 2309130063) (Warby Parker v. U.S., CIT # 23-00042) (MTD Products v. U.S., CIT # 23-00184).