The International Trade Commission properly analyzed whether there was a "reasonable overlap of competition between and among" imports of oil country tubular goods from Argentina, Mexico, Russia and South Korea and the domestic like product, and reasonably decided to cumulate the imports from these countries in its analysis, the U.S. argued (Tenaris Bay City v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-2034).

MPS Industries dismissed its 2023 action against the United States on Jan. 30. The case had challenged CBP’s determination that its unrated push pull transformers were classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8504.31.4065, carrying a duty of 6.6%, rather than under the duty-free subheading 8504.31.2000 (MPS Industries v. United States, CIT #23-00146).

Glycine exporter Kumar Industries was properly hit with adverse facts available for failing to properly report its affiliation with four other companies in an antidumping duty administrative review on Indian glycine, the U.S. said Jan. 30 in a heavily redacted response to the exporter’s motion for judgment (Kumar Industries v. United States, CIT # 25-00081).

QualiFlex press sleeves -- a key component of papermaking machines -- are properly classified as papermaking machinery parts under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8439 rather than as "other" articles of plastics and other materials of HTS heading 3926, importer Voith US Inc. argued in a Feb. 3 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Voith US v. United States, CIT # 24-00029).

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

The Court of International Trade on Feb. 2 dismissed a pair of customs cases for lack of prosecution, since the cases weren't removed from the customs case management calendar prior to the "expiration of the applicable period of time of removal" (Kehoe Component Sales v. United States, CIT # 22-00187) (Froggy's Fog v. United States, CIT # 23-00273).

The Court of International Trade on Feb. 3 entered default against importer Aspects Furniture International in a customs penalty suit originally brought against Aspects Furniture International, Aspects Furniture Manufacturing, Hospitality Engineering Services and an executive of all three companies, Amy Sivixay. Deputy clerk Geoffrey Goell entered the default order for a cross-claim made by Sivixay, Aspects Furniture Manufacturing and Hospitality against Aspects Furniture International (United States v. Aspects Furniture Manufacturing, CIT # 25-00089).

National security justified the Commerce Department’s decision to withhold much of its final proposal to place importer Yangtze Memory Technologies Company on the Entity List, the U.S. said again in a supplemental briefing filed Feb. 2 (Husch Blackwell v. Department of Commerce, D.D.C. # 1:24-02733).

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

Importer Amcor Flexibles Singen filed stipulated judgments in a pair of cases at the Court of International Trade regarding the classification of its flexible packaging material entries. According to the judgments, CBP agreed to classify the goods as "backed aluminum foil" under duty-free Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7607.20.50 despite previously classifying them as "other" plastic foils of HTS subheading 3921.90.40, dutiable at 4.2% (Amcor Flexibles Singen v. United States, CIT #s 16-00031, 16-00199).