Letex Apparels, a Hong Kong trading company, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging that CBP negligently seized or forfeited 26,016 of the company's imported garments valued at $460,743.36. The company argued that, in handling its merchandise, CBP failed to "exercise due care" in handling the goods and violated the company's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure, the Administrative Procedure Act and a federal rule of criminal procedure requiring the return of property held by the government that isn't needed for evidentiary purposes (Letex Apparels Co. v. United States, C.D. Cal. # 2:25-04462).

The U.S. supported May 19 its motion to dismiss Canadian exporter Pipe & Piling Supplies’ challenge to the results of a Commerce Department pipe investigation (see 2503250054). The exporter has admitted it erred when it filed under the wrong jurisdictional regulation, the government said (Pipe & Piling Supplies v. United States, CIT # 24-00211).

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

Fluid end block exporter BGH Edelstahl Siegen attempted to "inject" an end-use requirement into antidumping and countervailing duty orders on forged steel fluid end blocks, the U.S. said in a motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. BGH Edelstahl argues that its forged steel blocks are not “fluid end blocks" because they aren't specifically meant for use in hydraulic pumps, it said (see 2503190024) (BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, CIT # 24-00176).

Agricultural cooperative Asociacion de Cooperativas Argentinas dismissed its antidumping duty case at the Court of International Trade on May 21, according to a notice of dismissal. The group brought the case to contest the Commerce Department's first review of the AD order on raw honey from Argentina. An attorney close to the matter said the suit was filed just in case Commerce denied the group's ministerial error claim. The agency then recognized the claim, reducing the group's AD rate. The group then withdrew its summons so the liquidation of its entries could proceed more quickly, the attorney said (Asociacion de Cooperativas Argentinas v. United States, CIT # 25-00086).

The Court of International Trade sustained in part and remanded in part the Commerce Department's second remand results in a suit on the 2016-17 review of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China in a confidential May 21 order. Judge Mark Barnett sent back Commerce's selection of exporter Shandong Linglong Tyre as a mandatory respondent and the agency's decision to rescind Linglong's separate-rate status (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. United States, CIT Consol. # 19-00069).

CBP wrongly found that couplings imported by Pusan Coupling originated in China instead of South Korea, the company said in a complaint at the Court of International Trade (Pusan Coupling Corp. v. United States, CIT # 25-00092).

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

Exporter Dongkuk S&C Co. on May 20 dropped its antidumping duty case at the Court of International Trade, filing a stipulation of dismissal at the court. The exporter filed the case to challenge the Commerce Department's 2020-21 review of the AD order on utility scale wind towers from South Korea. Counsel for Dongkuk didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (Dongkuk S&C Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00075).

The U.S. told the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that the Court of International Trade's recent hearing in the lead case on the use of International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs bolsters its bid to transfer a similar case in the D.C. court to the trade court (Learning Resources v. Trump, D.D.C. # 25-01248).