Plywood importer Interglobal Forest defended April 10 its attempt to have the Court of International Trade take judicial notice of three items from other proceedings: a stipulated judgment, a motion for entry of confession of judgment and a discovery response (American Pacific Plywood v. United States, CIT Consol. # 20-03914).
Antidumping duty petitioners, led by Brooklyn Bedding, will appeal a February Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's AD investigation on mattresses from Indonesia. In the ruling, the trade court said Commerce properly excluded in-transit mattresses from the calculation of constructed export price for respondent PT. Zinus Global Indonesia (see 2502180056). The trade court also upheld the agency's exclusion of the selling expenses of Zinus Indonesia's parent company Zinus Korea from the normal value calculation (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00277).
The Court of International Trade on April 16 held that it doesn't have jurisdiction under Section 1581(c) to hear claims from a group of importers that the Commerce Department failed to find a changed circumstance or open new shipper reviews in an antidumping duty investigation on Mexican tomatoes covering entries during 1995-96. Sustaining the agency's investigation results on remand, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves also held that the intervenors don't have standing to sue, since their claims aren't related to those of the other parties with standing.
The Court of International Trade on April 18 sustained the International Trade Commission's preliminary negative injury determination on aluminum extrusions from the Dominican Republic. Judge Lisa Wang rejected all three of the petitioners' claims, which challenged the ITC's findings that subject imports were negligible, there was "no likelihood of contrary evidence to arise in the final phase which would warrant a non-negligibility determination," and imports from the Dominican Republic don't have the potential to exceed the negligibility threshold in the "imminent future."
The Court of International Trade partly granted vehicle accessories importer Keystone Automotive Operations’ request for reconsideration of an Oct. 7 decision. CIT Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said she had conducted a “traditional eo nomine versus principal use analysis” in her decision, but that Keystone had actually argued that the United States Trade Representative had outlined a “new legal standard” for applying the relevant Section 301 tariff exclusion (Keystone Automotive Operations v. United States, CIT # 21-00215).
The U.S. defended its bid to transfer a case challenging President Donald Trump's tariffs on Canada imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and Section 232 to the Court of International Trade, arguing that the trade court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear the case and that the plaintiffs' convenience in keeping the suit in Montana is "irrelevant" to CIT's jurisdiction. Filing a reply brief on April 16, the government said the plaintiffs, four members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe, "ignore or misunderstand" CIT's "specialized nature and the fact that that court may also review the implementation of executive orders in cases within its jurisdiction" (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, D. Mont. # 4:25-00026).
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
CBP improperly classified importer AB Specialty Silicones' specialty silicone chemicals as organic-silicone compounds instead of as silicone compounds or organo-inorganic compounds, AB argued in an April 16 complaint at the Court of International Trade (AB Specialty Silicones v. United States, CIT # 25-00067).
The Court of International Trade dismissed exporter Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xiang) Industry Co.'s challenge to CBP's issuance of a withhold release order on silica-based products made by its parent company Hoshine Silicon or its subsidiaries. However, in a confidential decision issued on April 16, Judge Claire Kelly denied the government's motion to dismiss Hoshine's second claim, which contested CBP's refusal to modify the WRO (Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xing) Industry Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00048).
After a remand by Court of International Trade Judge Claire Kelly (see 2412170041), the Commerce Department again found in a countervailing duty administrative review’s final results that South Korea’s provision of off-peak electricity for less than adequate remuneration was specific to the country’s steel industry (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00211).