An importer said Feb. 7 that CBP wrongfully prevented a weight loss dietary supplement from entering the U.S. (Unichem Enterprises v. U.S., CIT # 24-00033).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Seven plywood importers will not participate in the appeal of a case on the antidumping duty investigation of hardwood plywood from China after participating at the Court of International Trade. The companies -- Canusa Wood Products, Concannon Corp., Fabuwood Cabinetry Corp., Holland Southwest International, Liberty Woods International, Northwest Hardwood and USPly -- told the court of their decision in a statement last week (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1258)

A petitioner told the court Feb. 2 that an exporter had filed its remand comments late because it replied in the response time allocated for defendant-intervenors, but had argued in its secondary capacity as a plaintiff. The exporter disagreed, saying it had been “clearly identified” as a defendant-intervenor by the court (Ellwood City Forge Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00077).

The Commerce Department unfairly assumed four Chinese tire exporters were under government control because they couldn't participate as separate rate respondents in a 6-year-old administrative review, importers and exporters said Feb. 2 in comments on the department’s remand determination in an antidumping duty review of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. U.S., CIT # 19-00069).

The Commerce Department misidentified two South Korean government programs as countervailable subsidies, including one that it had previously deemed too unspecific, a Korean steel exporter said Feb. 5 at the Court of International Trade (POSCO v. U.S., CIT # 24-00006).

The U.S. District Court for the District of Washington on Jan. 30 granted in part and denied in part importer Yakima Products' bid to seal parts of the complaint in a False Claims Act whistleblower suit against the company's alleged failure to pay import duties and false identification of the country of origin (United States v. Yakima Products Inc., D. Wash. # 21-0524).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Importers J. Conrad and Metropolitan Staple Corp. filed a stipulation of dismissal on Feb. 5 with the Court of International Trade in both of their cases challenging the expansion of the Section 232 steel and aluminum duties onto derivative products. The dismissals were filed in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision not to review a case from exporter Oman Fasteners on the same issue (see 2401080037). The high court's refusal to hear the case marked the sixth time the court turned down the opportunity to review presidential Section 232 action taken under President Donald Trump. The cases brought by J. Conrad and Metropolitan Staple Corp. were stayed until the Oman Fastener matter was final (J. Conrad Ltd v. United States, CIT # 20-00052) (Metropolitan Staple Corp. v. United States, CIT # 20-00053).

Importer Fit for Life sought reinstatement of its customs challenge Feb. 2 after it was dismissed that same day due to lack of prosecution (Fit for Life LLC v. U.S., CIT #20-00006).