The Commerce Department failed to support its use of quarterly costs and failed to provide a rational explanation when it revised the antidumping duty margin for Italian steel exporter Officine Tecnosider to zero percent on remand, Nucor Corporation said in its Oct. 12 remand comments at the Court of Internatinoal Trade (Officine Tecnosider SRL v. United States, CIT # 23-00001).

The U.S. will appeal an August Court of International Trade decision finding that the statute of limitations for CBP to collect on customs bonds runs six years from the date of the underlying entry's liquidation and not from the date that CBP demanded payment. Per the notice of appeal, the government will take the suit to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (United States v. American Home Assurance Co., CIT # 20-00175).

The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 13 order dismissed importer Kuester Systems Mexico's customs case on the classification of the company's motor vehicle parts. The trade court case was a protective filing while the company negotiated with CBP, S. Richard Shostak, counsel for Kuester, said in an email to Trade Law Daily. CBP allowed a related protest, recognizing the importer's claim that the goods qualified for duty-free NAFTA treatment, Shostak said. The CIT suit concerned certain motor vehicle parts classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8708.29.5160 (Kuester Systems Mexico S de RL v. U.S., CIT # 22-00331).

Exporter Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer and importer Repwire failed to argue that the Commerce Department could only limit respondents in an antidumping duty review when the number of respondents is large administratively, petitioner Southwire Co. said in its reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Should the appellate court find that Jin Tiong and Repwire didn't fail to exhaust their administrative remedies, the decision not to assign Jin Tiong a separate rate rested on the exporter's "failure to submit a timely" separate rate application, the petitioner argued (Repwire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1933).

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

Importer Kuester Systems Mexico on Oct. 12 moved to dismiss its customs case at the Court of International Trade on the classification of its motor vehicle parts. The company brought its suit in December to contest CBP's denial of its protest regarding certain motor vehicle parts classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8708.29.5160. The company said the goods should receive duty-free treatment under the USMCA. Counsel for the importer didn't reply to request for comment (Kuester Systems Mexico S de RL v. U.S., CIT # 22-00331).

The U.S. opposed an expedited briefing schedule from Chinese printer cartridge manufacturer Ninestar Corp. in the company's case against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Ninestar's motion would hold the government's motion to dismiss in abeyance pending resolution of the company's bid for a preliminary injunction. The U.S. said "it is reversible error for the Court to delay consideration of its jurisdiction until after ruling on the motion for a preliminary injunction" (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

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

An "importer" for the purposes of assessing excise taxes must be involved in physically bringing goods into the U.S., the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled. Opining on whether tire wholesaler Texas Truck Parts & Tire was properly assessed excise tax on taxable tires, Judge Charles Eskridge said that since the company didn't arrange any of the transport of the tires from China nor secure their release from a customs-bonded warehouse, it is not an importer.

The Commerce Department unlawfully miscalculated duty rates and allowed a foreign producer too much leeway in the final results of its first antidumping administrative review of forged steel fluid end blocks from Italy, petitioner Ellwood City Forge Co. said in an Oct. 13 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Ellwood asked the court to remand the case to Commerce for reconsideration (Ellwood City Forge Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00191).