The Court of International Trade on Oct. 2 sustained the Commerce Department's scope ruling made on remand excluding engines with horizontal crankshafts from the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on vertical shaft engines between 99cc and up to 225cc from China.
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 2 rejected exporter Chandan Steel Limited's motion for reconsideration of the court's previous decision sustaining the 145.25% total adverse facts available rate set against the exporter in the 2018-19 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel flanges from India.
Parties in a lawsuit may compel opposing parties to produce publicly available information during discovery, the Court of International Trade ruled Oct. 4. In the ruling, which partly granted and partly denied pistol maker Glock’s motion to compel responses to its discovery request, Judge Jenifer Choe-Groves also criticized the government’s late responses, which she said suggested "carelessness and a lack of appropriate due diligence.” (Glock v. U.S., CIT # 23-00046).
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 1 approved increases to its transcript fee rates, the court announced. The court laid out the following prices for various transcripts: $4.40 per page for a 30-day transcript, $5.10 per page for a 14-day transcript, $5.85 per page for a seven-day transcript, $6.55 per page for a three-day transcript, $7.30 per page for a next-day transcript and $8.70 per page for a two-hour transcript. The cost of a first copy to each party is $1.10 for a 30-, 14- and seven-day transcript. Copy costs per party are $1.30 for a three-day transcript and $1.45 for a next-day and two-hour transcript.
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 1 said court-led mediation in a suit from LE Commodities challenging 14 denied requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs resulted in a "settlement of all issues." Judge Leo Gordon led the mediation. Counsel for LE Commodities didn't respond to a request for comment on the nature of the settlement (LE Commodities v. United States, CIT # 22-00245).
An importer’s stainless steel sinks from China weren't incorrectly liquidated by CBP despite “express instructions” from Commerce, the U.S. said Oct. 1 in a cross-motion for summary judgment and in partial opposition to the importer’s own Sept. 5 motion for judgment. Rather, it said, the importer was misunderstanding a “straightforward issue” by mixing up components and value added (R.H. Peterson v. U.S., CIT # 20-00099).
After oral argument, the U.S. asked the Court of International Trade to supplement its motion to dismiss in a case involving seized weight loss dietary supplements, saying that it had found emails from CBP “responsive to the Court’s questions" (UniChem Enterprises v. United States, CIT # 24-00033).
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 2 denied exporter Chandan Steel Limited's motion for reconsideration of the court's order sustaining the exporter's 145.25% total adverse facts available rate in the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel flanges. Chandan said the trade court failed to address all of its arguments in its decision, including that Commerce should have limited its use of AFA solely to the individual U.S. sales for which information was missing. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that while Commerce had the authority to take that path, it wasn't required to by the statute and that the decision to use total AFA was justified.
Importer Cozy Comfort on Oct. 1 said that the government is seeking to exclude evidence offered by the importer in its tariff classification case that the government itself is looking to enter into evidence. Cozy Comfort said the U.S. "cannot have it both ways," adding that the government's motion to exclude the evidence "is riddled with self-serving arguments, wasting the Court's time" (Cozy Comfort Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00173).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 1 granted dismissal of government's appeal contesting the erroneous deemed liquidation of its goods that were subject to suspended liquidation. The Court of International Trade had ruled Fraserview didn't need a protest to file its suit (see 2401250039). CIT said that because the statute for deemed liquidation requires that the entries not be suspended, CBP's notices of deemed liquidation didn't operate to actually liquidate the entries. The U.S. appealed the decision but dropped the matter in a joint stipulation filed in September (see 2409060005) (Fraserview Remanufacturing v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-2049).