The government was right to say that a Chinese brick importer’s magnesia alumina graphite bricks were subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on magnesia carbon bricks from China, a petitioner argued in a case regarding the quantity of alumina needed to exempt magnesia alumina graphite bricks from duties (Fedmet Resources v. U.S., CIT # 23-00117).

The language of AD/CVD orders on steel wheels from China doesn't prevent the Commerce Department from conducting a substantial transformation analysis on wheels that only have one Chinese-origin component out of two, the U.S. said in a March 8 brief opposing a plaintiff’s motion for judgment (Asia Wheel v. U.S., CIT # 23-00096).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on March 12 affirmed a federal D.C. court's dismissal of Venezuelan national Samark Jose Lopez Bello's suit against his designation as a narcotics trafficker under the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (Samark Jose Lopez Bello v. Andrea M. Gacki, D.C. Cir. # 21-01727).

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

DOJ attorney Tara Hogan submitted a letter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit correcting a statement she made during March 7 oral argument in a countervailing duty case on ripe olives from Spain (Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1162).

The Court of International Trade in a confidential March 11 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's final results of the sixth review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. In a letter to the litigants, Judge Richard Eaton said he intends to issue a public version of the opinion "in the near future," giving parties until March 18 to review the confidential information in the matter (Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 19-00144).

The Court of International Trade released its questions ahead of March 19 oral arguments in a case on the 2019-21 review of the antidumping duty order on Indian quartz countertops. Judge Mark Barnett asked a host of questions pertaining to the Commerce Department's filing deadlines (Cambria Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00007).

Honeywell, an importer of chordal, radial and web brake segments used in aircraft wheel and brake assemblies, said in a March 5 motion for judgment that its goods were classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8803 rather than heading 6307, as CBP ruled (Honeywell International Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 17-00256).

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

The U.S. will appeal a January Court of International Trade decision upholding the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury finding on mattresses from a host of countries. The government will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where it likely will be consolidated with exporter CVB's appeal of the same decision (see 2402160027). In its decision, the trade court found errors in the ITC's assessment of whether the market industry is segmented, but it still sustained the affirmative injury finding due to the "harmless error" principle (see 2312200070) (CVB v. U.S., CIT # 21-00288).