A consumer filed suit in New York on March 27 alleging that the aluminum foil brand Reynolds, which her complaint called “a staple of Americana,” harmed consumers by falsely advertising that its foil was made in the U.S. (Anaya Washington v. Reynolds Consumer Products LLC, S.D.N.Y. # 24-02327).
During oral arguments March 26 for weekly and monthly planner classification case, Court of International Trade Judge Jane Restani told parties that the Harmonized Tariff Schedule is written in British, not American, English (Blue Sky The Color of Imagination v. U.S., CIT # 21-00624).
The Court of International Trade on March 26 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in the 2020-21 antidumping duty review on hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan. Judge Stephen Vaden said that since no party contests the remand results, which were voluntarily requested by Commerce so the agency could treat exporter Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co. as a mandatory respondent, the case is upheld (Optima Steel International v. U.S., CIT # 23-00108).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade reassigned 27 cases from various judges to new Judges Joseph Laroski and Lisa Wang. Chief Judge Mark Barnett reassigned 17 cases from Judges Claire Kelly, Timothy Reif, Jennifer Choe-Groves, Timothy Stanceu, Gary Katzmann, Leo Gordon, M. Miller Baker and Richard Eaton to Laroski, and 10 cases from Kelly, Reif, Katzmann, Gordon, Eaton and Thomas Aquilino to Wang.
A petitioner submitted its final brief March 25 opposing the Commerce Department’s continued use of India as a surrogate for Vietnam in its review of an antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets. It argued that Commerce was mixing up the definitions of “same” and “comparable” in its surrogate selection process (Catfish Farmers of America v. U.S., CIT # 21-00380).
The Commerce Department doesn't consider a product's end-use while making scope rulings unless required to by the relevant antidumping or countervailing duty order, the government said March 26 as it opposed summary judgment in a scope ruling case regarding edge-glued boards from China (Hardware Resources v. U.S., CIT # 23-00150).
The U.S. filed a cross-motion for summary judgment March 25 in a case contesting CBP’s assessment of antidumping duties on an importer’s entries of a product that had been exempted from an AD order (see 2401080040). In the cross-motion, the government said that the liquidation had gone ahead because the importer hadn't filed the proper entry documentation (Kiswire Inc. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #22-00181).
Responding to opposition to class certification by the chocolate company Nestle USA, a plaintiff said March 22 she never would have purchased Nestle’s products if the company’s packaging hadn’t misrepresented them as sustainably and ethically sourced (Falcone v. Nestle USA, S.D. Cal. # 19-00723).
An importer said in a March 27 complaint that the Commerce Department shouldn't have found that its garlic cloves from China that are boiled, then frozen were subject to an antidumping duty order on fresh garlic (Export Packers Company Limited v. U.S., CIT # 24-00061).