The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade granted the United States’ Feb. 11 motion for voluntary remand to “reconsider its finding that” Nur Gemicilik “was a cross-owned input supplier” of respondent Kaptan Demir (see 2602100048), according to the court’s Feb. 12 order (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #22-00149).
On Feb. 13, the U.S. moved to stay a Court of International Trade case involving Veregy Central’s complaints against protests denied by CBP regarding the collection of duties on imported solar cells from Thailand and Vietnam, which Veregy claimed were exempt, until the conclusion of Auxin Solar v. United States at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Veregy Central v. United States, CIT # 25-00229).
Importer Posco International America on Feb. 12 dismissed two of its lawsuits at the Court of International Trade claiming its hot-rolled steel flat products were improperly deemed liquidated with antidumping duties and countervailing duties. Posco initially filed the cases in 2024 to contest CBP's denial of its protest contesting the deemed liquidation of its steel entries (Posco International America v. United States, CIT #s 24-00035, 24-00116).
German importer MTU Maintenance Hannover and the U.S. requested a 90-day stay in an antidumping duty case “so that the parties can continue working towards a final resolution,” according to a joint status report filed with the Court of International Trade on Feb. 13 (MTU Maintenance Hannover v. United States, CIT # 25-00023).
Amsted Rail shouldn’t be excluded from the domestic industry, and the U.S. industry is “materially injured” by freight rail couplers imported from China that are sold in the United States at less than fair value and “are subsidized by the government of China,” Commissioner Jason Kearns said in his views on remand filed with the Court of International Trade on Feb. 11 (Wabtec Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00157).
The Court of International Trade remanded multiple aspects of the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available in its inquiry into whether certain Vietnamese goods circumvented the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood products from China.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Blue Sky The Color of Imagination and the U.S. each proposed a way forward in the importer's customs case on the classification of its planning calendars following a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Blue Sky the Color of Imagination v. United States, CIT # 21-00624).
Petitioner Giorgio Foods on Feb. 12 defended its claim at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the Commerce Department unlawfully picked Germany as the comparison market for the antidumping duty investigation of preserved mushrooms from the Netherlands. In a reply brief, Giorgio argued, among other things, that the U.S. and respondent Prochamp misconstrued the petitioner's "key point" concerning the AD statute's hierarchical approach to identifying foreign like products, which contributes to the selection of comparison markets (Giorgio Foods v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-2090).