Importers J. Conrad and Metropolitan Staple Corp. filed a stipulation of dismissal on Feb. 5 with the Court of International Trade in both of their cases challenging the expansion of the Section 232 steel and aluminum duties onto derivative products. The dismissals were filed in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision not to review a case from exporter Oman Fasteners on the same issue (see 2401080037). The high court's refusal to hear the case marked the sixth time the court turned down the opportunity to review presidential Section 232 action taken under President Donald Trump. The cases brought by J. Conrad and Metropolitan Staple Corp. were stayed until the Oman Fastener matter was final (J. Conrad Ltd v. United States, CIT # 20-00052) (Metropolitan Staple Corp. v. United States, CIT # 20-00053).
In a Jan. 31 supplemental filing after oral arguments held a week earlier by the Court of International Trade, petitioners again rejected the Commerce Department's calculation of a Turkish exporter's duty drawback adjustment. On the same day, DOJ pushed back in its own supplemental filings on a pair of questions from the court (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #21-00246).
A Canadian steel products exporter asked the Court of International Trade to reverse a Jan. 31 dismissal of six of its cases for failure to prosecute, saying its lawyers had accidentally overlooked the deadline while negotiating with the government out of court (Arcelormittal Long Products Canada G.P. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00037, -00038, -00039, -00040, -00041, -00042).
The Court of International Trade's mediation in a challenge from importer California Steel Industries seeking exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum duties "did not result in a settlement," the court said in a Feb. 2 report of mediation. While Judge M. Miller Baker presides over the case, Judge Leo Gordon served as "Judge Mediator" for the process, which wrapped up Feb. 1 (California Steel Industries v. U.S., CIT # 21-00015).
Indonesian mattress exporter PT Ecos Jaya Indonesia and its affiliate PT Grantec Jaya Indonesia launched a challenge at the Court of International Trade against the Commerce Department's calculation of the exporter's constructed value and constructed export profit and selling expense ratios. The company objected to Commerce's use of financial data from Malaysian mattress maker Masterfoam Industries and Indian mattress conglomerate Kurlon Enterprise as surrogate sources (PT Ecos Jaya Indonesia v. United States, CIT # 24-00001).
German exporters, led by Ilsenburger Grobblech, filed an opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit challenging the Commerce Department's decision to use adverse facts available against exporter Salzgitter Mannesmann Stahlhandel in an antidumping duty investigation on cut-to-length carbon and alloy steel plate from Germany (Ilsenburger Grobblech GmbH v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1219).
The U.S. Senate on Feb. 5 confirmed the nomination of Joseph Laroski to serve as the next judge on the Court of International Trade. The nomination of Laroski, who most recently worked as a partner at antidumping and countervailing duty petitioners' firm Schagrin Associates, passed by a unanimous vote of 76-0.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Correction: Fit for Life, a company that partners with brands such as Gaiam, Reebok, New Balance and Adidas, said at the Court of International Trade that CBP should have classified its imported balance ball chairs as seats of rubber or plastic, a duty-free provision under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9401, rather than as “other articles and equipment for general physical exercises” under heading 9506, which carries a 4.6% duty (see 2402010049).
The U.S. on Feb. 2 asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for another 60 days to file its opening brief in a case on the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on hardwood plywood from China. All parties consented to the request (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1258).