The U.S. reiterated its stance that a cigarette seller’s products were considered imported on the date of arrival for admission to a foreign-trade zone, not the date on which they left it for domestic sale. It asked the Court of International Trade to dismiss the importer’s complaint with prejudice (King Maker Marketing v. United States, CIT # 24-00134).
The U.S. and importer Mirror Metals filed a stipulated judgment on agreed facts in which the government agreed not to apply 25% Section 232 tariffs to the importer’s steel articles (Mirror Metals v. United States, CIT #21-00144).
The Commerce Department erred in using a country-wide adverse facts available rate in calculating the antidumping duty rate for the separate rate respondents, importers led by Galleher Corp. argued in an opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Galleher argued the use of the AFA rate "punishes" the separate rate firms for respondent Sino-Maple's "lack of cooperation" and leads to an "aberrational margin that does not bear any relationship to the actual dumping margins of the separate rate companies" (Fuson Jinlong Wooden Group Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1196).
The following lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade dismissed eight customs cases for lack of prosecution, noting that all cases were previously placed on the customs case management calendar but weren't removed "at the expiration of the applicable period of time of removal."
The following new lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Exporter Nagase & Co. and the U.S. settled all claims in Nagase's suit challenging the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on glycine from Japan. As a result, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed the exporter's appeal of the AD review (Nagase & Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1008).
Importer Eteros Technologies asked the Court of International Trade for an expedited briefing schedule in its suit alleging that CBP retaliated against the company's executives after the company received a favorable ruling at the Court of International Trade (see 2501300018). Eteros said a speedy resolution of the case is needed "to resolve the legal uncertainties created by CBP’s defiance of this Court’s Article III powers and the reach of its national jurisdiction" and its "prior judgments and orders" (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, CIT # 25-00036).
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit judges didn’t ask much as, on Feb. 3, Chinese exporters led by Carbon Activated Tianjin faced off against petitioners and the United States regarding the results of two administrative antidumping duty reviews on its activate carbon products. The exporters argued, among other things, that the Commerce Department used too narrow a category of product when selecting a surrogate value for the prices of an input (Carbon Activated v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2135, 23-2413).
No lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade.