The Court of International Trade on Oct. 1 sent back the Commerce Department's finding that antidumping duty respondent Ditar correctly reported an individual transaction, dubbed "Transaction X," as a home market sale in the AD investigation on shopping bags from Colombia. Judge M. Miller Baker said on remand the agency must address whether Ditar had "actual" knowledge of whether Transaction X was destined for export "without importing evidence relevant only to" whether Ditar had "constructive" knowledge that the sale was for export.
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Domestic thermal paper producers on Sept. 29 opposed the Commerce Department’s continued inclusion, after a remand, of interest accrued on unpaid antidumping duties in its calculation of German exporter Koehler Paper’s normal value for an AD investigation (Matra Americas v. United States, CIT # 21-00632).
The Commerce Department properly found that the South Korean government's full allotment of emissions permits under the Korean Emissions Trading System (K-ETS) was de facto specific, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public Oct. 1.
The parties challenging tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act asked the Supreme Court to grant divided argument among the three groups of plaintiffs challenging the tariffs and to allow for 45 minutes of argument for each side. The three groups are five importers that filed suit at the Court of International Trade, 12 U.S. states that filed suit at CIT, and two importers that filed their case at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
The Commerce Department said its ACCESS system isn't receiving regular updates due to the federal government shutdown, which began on Oct. 1, the start of the 2026 fiscal year. All pending submissions in proceedings before the agency should be submitted by their current due date, the agency said.
Importer PF America dropped another case at the Court of International Trade seeking exclusions from Section 301 duties on its vinyl flooring imports. The importer entered the goods under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 3916.20.0020 and 9903.88.17, though CBP classified the goods under subheadings 3916.20.0091 and 9903.88.02, subjecting the flooring to Section 301 duties. Recently, PF America dropped a separate suit also seeking Section 301 exclusions on its flooring entries under a similar secondary subheading (see 2509190050) (PF America v. United States, CIT # 22-00255).
Andrew Dhuey, a patent attorney and court-appointed amicus, asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit this week for permission to take part in the oral argument in a case on former Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden's decision not to redact information deemed confidential by the International Trade Commission. Dhuey noted that a motions panel at the CAFC previously said his right to participate in oral argument shall be decided by the merits panel, and that the now-assigned merits panel has yet to issue a decision on the amicus' right to take part in the hearing (In Re United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1566).
The U.S. opened a customs penalty suit last week against wire garment hanger importer LGA Trading and its director, Galo Goya, at the Court of International Trade, seeking over $3.1 million as a penalty for negligence and over $1.9 million in unpaid duties (United States v. LGA Trading, CIT # 25-00214).
Responding Sept. 22 to the government’s opposition to its motion for judgment, importer Zoetis said that its products were only ingredients of animal feed additives, not additives in themselves (Zoetis Services, v. United States, CIT # 22-00056).