No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.

CBP's attempts to collect a 14-year-old bond for antidumping duties on Chinese garlic may be affected by the Court of International Trade's ruling in a similar case, defendant Aegis Security said in a notice of supplemental authority. CIT Judge Richard Eaton ruled on Aug. 22 that the statute of limitations for CBP to collect on customs bonds runs six years from the date of the underlying liquidation rather than from the date that CBP demanded payment (see 2308220054). Though Aegis notes that CIT judges are not bound by the decisions of other judges on the court, the company has been arguing for a similar result (see 2210270054).

The Commerce Department unnecessarily backed off of its use of adverse facts and erred in a dumping margin calculation on imported steel nails from Oman in an antidumping duty review, domestic producer and defendant-intervenor Mid Continent Steel & Wire said in remand comments filed Aug. 23. Mid Continent is contesting the July 17 remand results, in which Commerce reversed its imposition of total adverse facts available on Oman Fasteners and completely removed the 154.33% AD rate for the company (see 2307170036) (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., CIT # 22-00348).

Exporter Tenaris Bay City's "only hope" in its case against the International Trade Commission's injury finding for oil country tubular goods from Argentina and Mexico is for the Court of International Trade to "reweigh the evidence," though this is barred by the "statutory standard of review," petitioners led by U.S. Steel Corp. argued. Replying to Tenaris' motion for judgment, the petitioners said that "[e]xtensive evidence confirmed that subject imports materially injured the domestic industry," and that the ITC permissibly cumulated imports from Russia in the analysis (Tenaris Bay City v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00344).

CBP's admission that imported desk pad and planning calendars meet the dictionary definition of "calendar" is evidence that the items should have been so classified as a calendar under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. subheading 4910.00.2000 instead of the basket provision for other paper products in subheading 4820.10.4000, importer Blue Sky said in a motion for judgment filed Aug. 23 at the Court of International Trade. Blue Sky is attempting to overturn CBP's classification of four models of Blue Sky's weekly and monthly planning calendars. While both classifications are duty-free, the government's preferred classification carries additional Section 301 duties (Blue Sky The Color of Imagination v. U.S., CIT # 21-00624).

The Commerce Department failed to adequately support its position on remand to not treat ship building company Nur Gemicilik ve Tic, an affiliate of countervailing duty respondent Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret, as a cross-owned input supplier of goods primarily dedicated to the production of downstream products, CVD petitioner Rebar Trade Action Coalition said (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 21-00565).

Correction: Importer YVC USA told CBP in the course of an Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) investigation that it was unaware that its Chinese supplier was conducting an evasion scheme by transshipping Chinese-origin forged steel fittings through Sri Lanka (see 2308220028).

CBP's Office of Regulations & Rulings legally reversed the Trade Remedy & Law Enforcement Directorate's finding that Dominican company Kingtom Aluminio evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, the U.S. argued in an Aug. 23 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The government said that OR&R lawfully decided not to apply adverse inferences against Kingtom as requested by petitioner Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee (Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee v. United States, CIT # 22-00236).

The government’s position in a case regarding substitution unused merchandise drawback for aircraft parts would lead to "absurd results" if upheld, presenting a "significant risk of manipulation or unintended results" arising from changes in statistical language in the tariff schedule if the court agrees with DOJ's interpretation of the drawback statute, importer Spirit Aerosystems said in an Aug. 18 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Spirit Aerosystems v. U.S., CIT # 20-00094).

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