The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Exporters Deacero and I.N.G.E.T.E.K.N.O.S. Estructurales on Oct. 3 dropped their antidumping duty case at the Court of International Trade. The companies filed suit last month to contest the final results of the Commerce Department's 2022-23 administrative review of the AD order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Mexico. Counsel for Deacero didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (Deacero v. United States, CIT # 25-00216).
Target General Merchandise will appeal a recent Court of International Trade decision regarding the tariff classification of the company's string light models, according to a notice Target filed at the trade court. Last month, CIT found string light models to be classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9405 as lamps with a "permanently fixed light source" not specified elsewhere in the tariff schedule and not under heading 8543 as parts of electrical machines having individual functions not specified elsewhere in the chapter (see 2508130023). The court said Target's seven models of string lights specifically fall under subheading 9405.30.00 as lighting sets "of a kind used for Christmas trees," subjecting the goods to an 8% duty (Target General Merchandise v. United States, CIT Consol. # 15-00069).
The Court of International Trade partially remanded the International Trade Commission's injury investigation on freight rail couplers from China in a confidential decision issued Oct. 8. Judge Gary Katzmann held oral argument in the case in July, questioning attorneys as to whether it was lawful for the ITC to open an injury investigation two months after reaching a negative injury finding for the same imports (see 2507070056) (Wabtec Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00157).
German aluminum manufacturer Speira argued in an Oct. 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade that CBP failed to apply the antidumping duty rate the Commerce Department calculated for Hydro Aluminum Rolled Products to its entries, since Commerce found that Speira is the successor-in-interest to Hydro. As a result, CBP refused to refund the excess duties paid by Speira, the company said (Speira v. United States, CIT # 25-00218).
The Commerce Department improperly found that the plain language of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on chassis and subassemblies thereof from China cover Vietnamese chassis with Chinese-origin components, the Court of International Trade held on Oct. 8. Judge Claire Kelly said the orders "contain multiple ambiguities," including "when components are included within the scope of the Orders," when third-country operations exclude the individual components from the orders, and the meaning of "subassemblies ... whether ... assembled or unassembled."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 8 held that the Commerce Department's "cross-ownership regulation" turns on whether the purpose of the subsidy provided to a cross-owned input provider "is to benefit the production of both the input and downstream products." In clarifying how the regulation is to be applied, Judges Jimmie Reyna, William Bryson and Kara Stoll held that the Court of International Trade was right to reject Commerce's application of this regulation to countervailing duty respondent Gujarat Fluorochemicals in the countervailing duty investigation on polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin from India.
The Court of International Trade announced that Pacer.gov will undergo maintenance Oct. 12 6:55 a.m. to 7 p.m. EDT. During this time, users may experience difficulties when "logging onto CM/ECF and when making payments through Pay.gov."
Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Stanceu joined many of his colleagues in granting the government's motions to stay its case before him, pending the federal government shutdown. Like other CIT judges, Stanceu ordered the government to file a status report within 10 days of the appropriations lapse ending to establish new filing deadlines (see 2510020051).
During oral argument held Sept. 3 at the Court of International Trade, Judge Mark Barnett expressed skepticism about an argument that negative antidumping duty and countervailing duty determinations regarding a product preclude the Commerce Department from starting circumvention inquiries into the same product (SeAH Steel Vina Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00256, -00257, -00258).