The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Commerce Department failed to adjust the export price for Chinese exporter Trina Solar and continued to use the "unreliable" price of Romanian glass over Trina's objections, the exporter argued in a Nov. 6 complaint to the Court of International Trade (Trina Solar v. U.S., CIT # 23-00213).

Antidumping duty respondent Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret filed a second notice of supplemental authorities in its AD case at the Court of International Trade to point to a separate AD review involving a duty drawback adjustment and Commerce's requirement that only closed inward processing certificates be included in the numerator of Commerce's per unit calculation (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00616).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's key decision in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States doesn't apply to an Enforce and Protect Act case brought by importer All One God Faith since the importer's entries are all liquidated, the U.S. told the appellate court. Submitting a letter to the court on Nov. 7, the government argued that the court "has not addressed its jurisdiction over cases where all entries were liquidated with antidumping duties and those liquidations became final and conclusive," adding that this fact distinguishes it from Royal Brush (All One God Faith v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1078).

The Court of International Trade granted importer Time After Time Manufacturing's motion to dismiss its own customs case concerning its entries of plant carts. The importer filed the case in September, arguing that its plant carts of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9403.20.0050, free of duty, and secondary subheading 9903.88.03, subject to 25% Section 301 duties, qualify for subheadings 9817.00.5000 and 9403.20.0050, both free of duty (Time After Time Manufacturing v. U.S., CIT # 23-00203).

Counsel for importer Larson-Juhl US will proceed with the company's customs case alongside two cases from the relevant exporter, China Cornici Co., which is also represented by the same counsel. Submitting a joint status report to the Court of International Trade, Clark Hill attorneys said that they made the decision to allow the three cases to "proceed independently" instead of staying one of them following a meeting with the court in which Judge Stephen Vaden "asked the parties to reconsider the request to continue the stay and to discuss the order in which the three cases should proceed" (Larson-Juhl US v. United States, CIT # 23-00032).

The Commerce Department allegedly erred by not including countries producing like products as possible surrogates in its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane (R-134a) from China, the American HFC Coalition and some of its members -- Arkema, The Chemours Company, Honeywell International and Mexichem Fluor -- said in their Nov. 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade (The American HFC Coalition v. U.S., CIT # 23-00210).

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Importer Tempo Global Resources filed a stipulation of dismissal on Nov. 6 in its case on President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties onto "derivative" products, after the Supreme Court declined to hear another case challenging the same presidential action. The Court of International Trade stayed Tempo Global's case in August pending the high court's resolution of the separate Section 232 case, PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S. (see 2308080024). The Supreme Court rejected PrimeSource's request for review at the end of October, despite the company's claims that the case could allow the court to decide how separation-of-powers principles apply to statutory interpretations delegating vast legislative power to the executive branch (see 2310300020) (Tempo Global Resources v. United States, CIT # 20-00066).

Products imported by Cozy Comfort are "pullovers" or "sweatshirts" not "blankets" or "other garments," DOJ said in a Nov. 3 motion for judgment in a tariff classification case at the Court of International Trade (Cozy Comfort Company v. U.S., CIT # 22-00173).