An exporter of vehicle side bars said April 8 that Section 301 tariff exclusions shouldn't necessarily be considered princpal use provisions, but should instead be analyzed as either principal use, eo nomine or actual use provisions on a case-by-case basis because no published guidance singles out a specific method (Keystone Automotive Operations v. U.S., CIT # 21-00215).

On April 8, an importer sought to withdraw its motion to compel the government to give it certain unredacted documents and the addresses of several former CBP employees “relevant” to its case (see 2310160061) (Lutron Electronics Co. v. U.S.​​​​, CIT # 22-00264).

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

Headphone or speaker retail display shelves imported by Fasteners for Retail aren't covered by an antidumping and countervailing duty orders on prepackaged boltless steel shelving units from China, the Commerce Department said in a March 29 scope ruling. Among other things, the display shelves aren't shelving units -- they are only decks, or parts of shelves, it said.

A xanthan gum domestic producer said in an April 8 complaint that an antidumping duty petitioner hadn’t proved it was actually an “interested party,” but that the Commerce Department had let it participate in an administrative review anyway (CP Kelco U.S., Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00059).

After a remand, the Commerce Department once again refused to exclude certain steel products from Section 232 steel and aluminum duties even though their importer can’t get the needed materials domestically, that importer said in March 8 comments. Instead, it claimed, the department continued to simply rely on the word of its competitor (California Steel Industries v. U.S., CIT # 21-00015).

On April 5, a Vietnamese steel pipe exporter sought to limit, and the U.S. opposed, domestic petitioners’ attempt to consolidate three of the exporter’s cases in the Court of International Trade (SeAH Steel VINA Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00256, -00257, -00258).

The Court of International Trade in a confidential April 8 order sustained in part and remanded in part the Commerce Department's final remand results in a suit about the 2018-19 antidumping duty review on welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India. Judge Claire Kelly gave the parties until April 15 to review the opinion for confidential information, stating in a letter that she would like to issue the opinion publicly "on or shortly after" April 16. Exporter Garg Tube Export filed suit to contest Commerce's use of adverse facts available against the company after its unaffiliated input supplier failed to cooperate with the agency (see 2401220030) (Garg Tube Export v. United States, CIT # 21-00169).

The U.S. on April 5 rejected an importer’s claim that, based on the legislation governing changed circumstances reviews, the Commerce Department may not begin any new antidumping or countervailing duty investigations on a product within two years of the prior one (Wabtec Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 23-00160, -00161).

The Court of International Trade on April 8 upheld CBP's decision on remand that four importers didn't evade the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China. Judge Mark Barnett said the decision will be upheld because because there's "no substantive challenge" to the remand.