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

The U.S. asked the Court of International Trade for a voluntary remand in a countervailing duty case to reconsider the calculation of benchmark prices for land and ocean freight. The government said its practice regarding the calculation of these figures has evolved since the present case was brought by Risen Energy Co. and JA Solar on the 2019 review of the CVD order on solar cells from China (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00231).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate Sept. 1 in a case on the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against countervailing duty respondent Jangho Group. In a ruling on the 2013 review of the CVD order on aluminum extrusions, the appellate court upheld the Court of International Trade in its ruling that Commerce properly found the Chinese government and Jangho Group failed to respond to the best of their ability on whether aluminum extrusions producers are "authorities" (see 2205100076) (Taizhou United Imp. & Exp. Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2000).

Two claims of substitution drawback for imports of petroleum derivatives already had been deemed liquidated when CBP later "attempted" liquidation,importer Performance Additives, LLC said in an Aug. 31 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. Performance Additives is seeking repayment of over $1.4 million in Section 301 duties it argues were improperly levied (Performance Additives v. U.S., CIT # 22-00044).

The Commerce Department released the results of its fourth remand redetermination in an antidumping duty investigation on steel nails from Taiwan, sticking with its use of a simple average to calculate the denominator of the Cohen’s d test coefficient. The department said it complied with the remand order by providing reasonable justification for its methodology in its test to identify "masked dumping" (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. U.S., CIT # 15-00213).

A complaint by Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) that challenged the International Trade Commission's decision not to institute a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Turkey should be dismissed because Erdemir's claim was rendered moot when the ITC conducted a full sunset review, the ITC said in an Aug. 31 brief at the Court of International Trade (Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT # 22-00350).

Importer Metal One America moved Aug. 31 to dismiss its customs case at the Court of International Trade concerning its imports of hot-rolled high carbon wire rod tire cord made of steel. In the case, the importer said its product, classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7213.91.3011, qualifies for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs (Metal One America v. U.S., CIT # 21-00503).

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 31 order dismissed importer Victaulic Company's customs case concerning its VicFlex sprinkler brackets, per the company's request. Victaulic said its brackets are properly classified as "parts" of machines for dispersing or spraying liquids under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8424.90.9080 and not subject to Section 301 duties (see 2207180024) (Victaulic v. U.S., CIT # 22-00022).

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

The Commerce Department failed to provide a compelling reason for its doubling of its dumping margin calculation for Cambodian mattress makers on remand, Best Mattress International and Rose Iron Furniture said in their Aug. 30 remand comments. The firms said the decision was unsupported by substantial evidence, as were its decision to use a simple average in surrogate value cost calculations and its reliance on financial statements from Emirates Sleep (Best Mattresses International v. U.S., CIT # 21-00281).