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

Two cases involving the 2021-2022 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from India should be consolidated by the Court of International Trade, AD petitioner Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee told the court in its Nov. 2 consolidation request (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v. U.S., CIT # 23-00202; Megaa Moda Private Limited v. U.S., CIT # 23-00205).

The Commerce Department correctly found that lemon juice exporter Louis Dreyfus Co. (LDC) was not affiliated with its unnamed primary fresh lemon supplier and correctly applied a de minimis rate to LDC, the company said in its Nov. 1 reply brief at the Court of International Trade, coming on the heels of a similar brief by DOJ (see 2311020024) (Ventura Coastal v. U.S., CIT # 23-00009).

The U.S. and importer Fanuc Robotics America have "reached an agreement in principle" on how to classify all but two models of robots at issue in the the importer's case at the Court of International Trade. Submitting a joint status report on Nov. 3, the parties said that the classification of the remaining two models is "taking the parties much longer than anticipated" due to the age of the models and the retirement of the national import specialist who "assisted with the review of the technical information" in the case (Fanuc Robotics America v. U.S., CIT # 12-00052).

Self-powered, radioluminescent light sources fueled by tritium that importer Trijicon uses to illuminate gun sights are properly classified as "lamps" under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9405 "not elsewhere specified or included," the U.S. argued in a cross motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade. The common meaning of the term "lamp," derived from "lexicographic sources and caselaw," shows this to be true, but it's really Trijicon's own communications with its supplier, workers, customers and chief regulator agreeing with this point that win the day for the government, the brief said (Trijicon v. United States, CIT # 22-00040).

The Court of International Trade stayed a customs case concerning importer Cambridge Isotope Laboratories' enriched ammonium sulfate isotope until Dec. 11, given that Cambridge is consulting with the relevant antidumping and countervailing duty petitioners for a "partial revocation of the AD/CVD Orders on Ammonium Sulfide from China." Cambridge filed suit to contest CBP's assessment of the AD/CVD on the imports (see 2308300052) (Cambridge Isotope Laboratories v. United States, CIT # 23-00080).

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

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 2 order granted petitioner Sierra Pacific Industries' notice of dismissal in a case involving the final results of the 2021 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on softwood lumber products from Canada. The case was filed in October and dismissed before a complaint was filed (Sierra Pacific Industries v. United States, CIT # 23-00207).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a text-only order granted a motion to extend time to file an opening brief from exporters Double Coin Holdings and China Manufacturers Alliance in a case involving a review of the antidumping duty order on off-the-road tires from China. The exporters now have until Nov. 28 to file the opening brief in a case whin ich the Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's decision to assign Double Coin the 105.31% China-wide dumping rate due to the company's failure to rebut the presumption of Chinese state control over its export activities (see 2307200020) (China Manufacturers Alliance v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2391).

The U.S. asked the Court of International Trade for a voluntary remand in an Enforce and Protect Act case to consider the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's key decision in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. In that decision, the appellate court said that CBP violated an EAPA respondent's due process rights by not providing it access to the confidential business information in the case (see 2307270038) (Phoenix Metal Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00048).