U.S. steelmaker Cleveland-Cliffs filed stipulations of dismissal in two suits challenging the International Trade Commission's negative injury findings in the five-year reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Brazil and the AD/CVD orders on hot-rolled steel from Brazil. The company had filed its complaint in both cases, arguing against the ITC's decision not to cumluate imports from Brazil with goods from Australia, Japan, the Netherlands, Russia, South Korea, Turkey and the U.K.

Importer MKI Enterprise Group, doing business as Winbo USA, filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on April 22 to contest CBP's denial of a Section 301 exclusion for its entries of "steel side protective attachments for motor vehicles, specifically side bars, fern bars, and bars" from China (MKI Enterprise Group v. United States, CIT # 22-00131).

The Court of International Trade again remanded the Commerce Department's remand results in the 2018 review of the countervailing duty order on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea, in an April 19 confidential opinion. In a letter to the litigants, Judge Mark Barnett gave the parties until April 26 to review the confidential information in the opinion. Barnett said Commerce shall "reconsider or further explain" its decision not to investigate the off-peak sale of electricity allegedly for less than adequate remuneration.

Alpinestars, an Italian exporter of motorcycle safety apparel, brought a short complaint to the Court of International Trade on April 18 (Alpinestars, SPA v. U.S., CIT # 11-00007).

A manufacturer must have attributed to them all subsidies received by a cross-owned input supplier’s upstream product that is “primarily dedicated to the production of the downstream product,” a domestic petitioner said in an April 17 brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. It also argued that the “downstream product” doesn’t need to be “subject merchandise” (Gujarat Fluorochemicals v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1268).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed the government's appeal of a Court of International Trade decision scrapping a customs bond penalty action against surety firm American Home Assurance Co. The U.S. voluntarily dismissed the case (see 2404170042) (U.S. v. American Home Assurance Co., Fed. Cir. # 24-1069).

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The U.S. filed a motion to dismiss a customs suit from importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Supply, claiming that for the 33 entries at issue, the lawsuit challenging the denied protests was untimely, the importer lacked standing to sue or that the company failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted (Acquisition 362 v. United States, CIT # 24-00011).

Parties in a customs case on the classification of human interface controllers will tell the Court of International Trade by May 20 if they will proceed with the case under "summary judgment motions or request for a trial," Judge Timothy Stanceu said in an April 16 order, noting that a status conference won't be held April 19 as originally planned. Importer Robert Bosch brought suit in 2020 to contest CBP's classification of the controllers under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8473.70.9900, dutiable at 2.6% (see 2303090055) (Robert Bosch v. U.S., CIT # 20-00028).

The U.S. voluntarily dismissed its customs penalty appeal brought against surety firm American Home Assurance Co., according to an April 17 joint stipulation of voluntarily dismissal filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (United States v. American Home Assurance Co., Fed. Cir. # 24-1069).