Plaintiffs Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret and Gulf Coast Express Pipeline will appeal a Court of International Trade decision dismissing a case seeking Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions (see 2206100048). Per a July 29 notice of appeal, the plaintiffs are taking the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the opinion, the trade court said that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction since the subject entries are unliquidated, and that the plaintiffs failed to show that CBP's decision not to issue refunds before liquidation constitutes a protestable decision (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT #21-00186).

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

An amended fraud allegation by the government against Crown Cork & Seal should withstand a motion to dismiss, a July 27 government opposition brief said (United S ork & Seal, USA, Inc., et al., CIT #21-361).

The Commerce Department illegally used total adverse facts available on the grounds that antidumping respondent Kumar Industries failed to fully cooperate to the best of its ability, Kumar said in a July 28 brief at the Court of International Trade. Commerce's position that Kumar failed to hand over all of the information regarding its affiliation status is incorrect since the respondent gave "extensive information" on its affiliation status with two unnamed companies "at every occasion in the form and manner requested by Commerce," the brief said (Kumar Industries v. United States, CIT #21-00622).

U.S. Steel will appeal a Court of International Trade ruling that found the Commerce Department appropriately determined an Australian exporter didn't reimburse an affiliated importer for antidumping duties paid and was correct not to deduct the amount of antidumping duties paid from the exporter's U.S. price (see 2206100066). U.S. Steel will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the plaintiff said in a July 27 notice of appeal. The case concerns the administrative review of the AD duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia. CIT Judge Richard Eaton said the sale between exporter BlueScope Steel and the affiliated importer BlueScope Steel Americas was a "garden variety transaction among an exporter, an importer, and an unaffiliated purchaser" (U.S. Steel v. U.S., CIT #20-03815).

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

Plaintiffs in two Enforce and Protect Act cases, led by Dominican manufacturer Kingtom Aluminio in both actions, backed off their opposition to the U.S.'s motions to suspend proceedings in light of CBP's decision to flip its evasion finding on importers Global Aluminum Distributor and Hialeah Aluminum Supply. In the Global Aluminum Distributor case, CBP said it no longer believes the importers evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China by transshipping them through Kingtom (see 2206150047). In Kingtom's two cases, the U.S. requested a stay until the court sorts out the Global Aluminum case. These motions were met with opposition by the plaintiffs until CBP flipped its evasion finding in the Global Aluminum action, prompting the plaintiffs to leave the decision over the stay "to the sound discretion of the Court" (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00072, -00079).

The U.S and importer Target General Merchandise reached a settlement over the proper classification of girl's glitter/fabric ballet shoes, the parties said in a July 26 stipulation of dismissal. The Court of International Trade then order the case be dismissed without providing any details as to the settlement. Target launched its case in 2017, though the matter sat on the customs case management calendar for over four years. The ballet shoes were entered under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6402.99.41 as oxford height footwear of the slip-on type, dutiable at 12.5%, though CBP liquidated them under subheading 6402.99.49, dutiable at 37.5%. Target, via its October 2021 complaint, laid out its case for the shoes to be classified under this first subheading (Target General Merchandise v. U.S., CIT #17-00007).

The Court of International Trade in a July 27 order denied plaintiff Second Nature Designs' bid for a test case and suspension of another action at the trade court. Judge Gary Katzmann said that the U.S.'s opposition to the motion was denied as moot in light of the court's recent ruling in Cyber Power v. U.S., which found that the government does not have the legal authority to file a counterclaim in a customs case. Following the order, the two cases will continue separately (see 2207200052) (Second Nature Designs v. U.S., CIT #17-00271).

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