The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee ruled that importer Cabinets to Go didn't demonstrate that Chinese manufacturer Haiyan's failure to certify its products' country of origin violated any material term of an agreement between the two companies (Cabinets to Go v. Qingdao Haiyan Real Estate Group Co., M.D. Tenn. # 3:21-00711).

Commerce’s remand results involving the inclusion of in-transit mattresses in its quarterly ratio calculation did not satisfy a remand order by the Court of International Trade, antidumping duty respondent Zinus Indonesia said in its Aug. 8 remand comments. The court should remand the matter to Commerce to recalculate Zinus' dumping margin without including the mattresses in-transit, Zinus said (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. U.S., CIT # 21-00277).

CBP's failure to timely release documents in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation deprived importer Phoenix Metal of its right to defend against the agency's allegation that it transshipped in order to avoid paying antidumping and countervailing duties (see 2303030049), Phoenix said in an Aug. 9 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. The company said it had no chance to respond to allegations of evasion before "severe enforcement measures" were put in place, adding that CBP's "only purpose" in EAPA investigations "is to operate in the shadows and shun inconveniences like the [Administrative Procedure Act] and due process of law" (Phoenix Metal v. U.S., CIT # 23-00048).

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 7 order stayed a case challenging President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties onto "derivative" products beyond procedural time limits, pending the Supreme Court of the U.S.'s resolution of a case on the same challenge. Judges Jennifer Choe-Groves, M. Miller Baker and Timothy Stanceu stayed the matter until 65 days after PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S. is settled. Importer PrimeSource filed for a writ of certiorari at the high court at the end of July, asking the court to take up the case to settle ambiguity in the statutes delegating vast legislative power to the executive in favor of restraining this delegation (see 2307270028) (Tempo Global Resources v. U.S., CIT # 20-00066).

Retail giant Target Corp. will appeal a July Court of International Trade decision, which refused to invalidate a prior court order telling CBP to reliquidate Target's metal-top ironing tables. The notice of appeal says the retailer will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the opinion, Judge Leo Gordon said that if Target succeeded, it would call into question whether a party at the court could obtain "full and complete relief," turning the clock back over 40 years on the Article III court powers (see 2307200049) (Target Corp. v. United States, CIT #21-00162).

Court of International Trade Judge Mark Barnett encouraged parties in an antidumping duty case to involve their junior lawyers in an oral argument proceeding set for Aug. 15. Submitting a letter to the litigants in a suit on the AD investigation on raw honey from India, Barnett said the Federal Bar Council has suggested judges should modify their practice rules to let junior lawyers "take a more active role in oral arguments" (American Honey Producers Association v. United States, CIT # 22-00195).

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

Commerce did not have the right to institute an administrative review of an antidumping duty case while the underlying order was provisionally revoked, Goodluck India said during an Aug. 1 oral argument at the Court of International Trade. In response to questions from Judge Gary Katzmann, the central issue in the suit shifted from whether Commerce lawfully ordered liquidation at a rate vacated at the time of entry to whether the agency had the right to start a review of Goodluck while the AD order was provisionally revoked, pending appeal (Goodluck India v. U.S., CIT # 22-00024).

CBP incorrectly denied protests seeking retroactive refunds of Section 301 duties for entries of furniture parts and boxes imported from China, importer Store Supply Warehouse said in an Aug. 4 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The protested items consisted of nine entries of hardware racks, three entries of jewelry boxes and 10 entries of showcase parts imported through the Port of Savannah (Store Supply Warehouse v. U.S., CIT # 23-00035).

Parties in a suit over the Commerce Department's expedited countervailing duty review on softwood lumber disagreed on whether the Court of International Trade should tell Commerce to exclude four Canadian exporters from the CVD order following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's order saying the agency has the authority to conduct the review. In a joint status report filed Aug. 7, the Canadian parties in the case, which include the Canadian government, said the court should tell Commerce to exclude the companies and tell CBP to stop collecting CVD cash deposits, while the petitioner said a joint status report is not the correct venue for the request (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. U.S., CIT # 19-00122).