The Court of International Trade on Jan. 5 granted stipulated judgments in a trio of cases from importer Jing Mei Automotive (USA) regarding the company's entries of rear drive axle covers and front axle covers (Jing Mei Automotive (USA) v. United States, CIT #s 14-00281, 14-00060, 14-00003).
Plywood importer InterGlobal Forest, which is seeking a rehearing of its case challenging CBP’s finding that it evaded antidumping and countervailing duties on plywood from China, said Jan. 2 that the government’s response to its motion for reconsideration (see 2512150042) “ignores” its “substantive arguments that the Government is required to complete the administrative record” and “fails to refute IGF’s argument that there has been a manifest injustice in this case” (American Pacific Plywood v. United States, CIT Consol. # 20-03914).
The U.S. on Jan. 2 opposed three wildlife advocacy groups' bid to have the Court of International Trade compel the U.S. to comply with its settlement agreement with the groups by requiring the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to bar the importation of fish and fish products from all harvesting nations that don't meet Marine Mammal Protect Act (MMPA) standards (Natural Resources Defense Council v. Howard Lutnick, CIT # 24-00148).
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Cozy Comfort Company asked the Court of International Trade to designate its lead case on the classification of The Comfy, an oversized pullover, as a test case (Cozy Comfort Company v. United States, CIT #s 23-00003, 22-00173).
The Commerce Department continues to conflate "disproportionality" with "disparity" in its de facto specificity finding regarding a Korean electricity subsidy, the South Korean government told the Court of International Trade earlier this month. The trade court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have routinely found that these two concepts are distinct, yet Commerce ignores the courts' instruction when finding that the Korean steel industry, when paired with two unrelated industries, consumes a disproportionate amount of an electricity subsidy, the brief said (Hyundai Steel v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00190).
The Commerce Department properly used the financial statements of manufacturer PT Suparma to calculate respondent Go-Pak Vietnam's surrogate values and used a simple average of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 4810.32.90 and 4810.92.90, the US argued in a reply to Go-Pak's motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Go-Pak Paper Products Vietnam v. United States, CIT # 25-00070).
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department reasonably found on remand in a case on a new shipper review that exporter Co May Import-Export Company didn't have a bona fide sale of subject merchandise during the review period, petitioner Catfish Farmers of America argued. Filing comments in support of Commerce's remand decision at the Court of International Trade, the petitioner said the remand determination "fully and appropriately responds to the Court’s opinion" and is otherwise legal and supported by the record (Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, CIT # 24-00126).
Importer Amoena USA filed a pair of supplemental briefs at the Court of International Trade in its customs case on the classification of its mastectomy brassieres (Amoena USA v. United States, CIT # 20-00100).