The Court of International Trade entered stipulated judgment July 19 in a case over denied Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions. The case was reported to have been settled via mediation in February, with the trade court saying all the issues brought by plaintiffs Voestalpine High Performance Metals and Edro Specialty Steels were settled (see 2202080057). The court then held a status conference to discuss the availability of a remedy for already-liquidated entries. The parties reached a remedy stipulating that CBP will reliquidate the liquidated entries without the Section 232 duties and that refunds will be paid with interest, the judgment said. Voestalpine and Edro brought their case to CIT to contest the denial of 502 exclusion requests for high alloyed specialty steel products (see 2110010032) (Voestalpine High Performance Metals v. U.S., CIT #21-00093).

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

The Commerce Department's own precedent means it should have relied on the U.S. dollar price of home market sales in an antidumping duty case instead of foreign currentcy amounts to avoid large exchange rate fluctuations, plaintiff Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi argued in a July 18 reply brief. Filing its arguments at the Court of International Trade, Habas said that the "evidentiary record" shows Commerce should not have valued Habas's sales using the Turkish lira (Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v. United States, CIT #21-00527).

Battery powered flexible electronic eWriter device containing flexible pressure sensitive liquid crystal writing film are properly classified as "optical appliances" under subheading 9013.80.7000 and subject to a product exclusion under Section 301 tariffs, Kent Displays said in a July 18 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Kent Displays, Inc. v. U.S. CIT # 20-00156).

A recent Court of International Trade opinion finding that the Commerce Department appropriately rejected untimely filed questionnaire responses and extension requests is relevant for antidumping duty petitioner Wheatland Tube Co.'s case, the petitioner said in a July 19 notice of supplemental authority (Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipes Ind. v. United States, CIT #21-00587). In the recent decision in the Tau-Ken Temir v. U.S. case, the court said Commerce properly rejected the hour and 41 minutes-late submissions (see 2207150035). The plaintiffs said that technical difficulties and COVID-19 issues resulted in the late filings, but the court said Commerce did not abuse its discretion in denying the submissions since the plaintiffs' "experienced counsel" should have requested an extension earlier.

A case involving allegedly defective plywood should be dismissed from consideration at the Court of International Trade because the importer has failed to show evidence of actual defect or specific value lost, the government said in a July 18 cross-motion for summary judgement (Bral Corporation v. United States, CIT # 20-00154).

Mixes of frozen fruits should be classified under heading 0811 as "fruit and nuts," rather than under heading 2106 as "food preparations," the government said again in a July 18 brief in support of its May 23 motion to dismiss (see 2205240031) (Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West). v. U.S., CIT #20-00131). None of the products at issue constitute “food preparations” of heading 2106 as they are not subject to the level of processing that is typical of “food preparations.” Instead, the "all-fruit mixes at issue are classifiable under the eo nomine provision for frozen '[f]ruit' in Heading 0811, [Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S.], pursuant to GRI 1," the brief said.

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

The Commerce Department in July 18 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade flipped its positions on whether a particular market situation adjustment distorts the cost of production of a welded line pipe input and whether an adjustment should be made to antidumping duty respondent Nexteel Co.'s constructed value for sales of non-prime goods. The agency conformed to the trade court's ruling, finding a PMS doesn't exist and recalculating CVD without the non-prime goods adjustment, leaving respondents Nexteel and SeAH Steel Corp. with 1.12% and zero percent dumping rates, respectively. However, the agency stuck by its decision to reclassify Nexteel's reported losses over its suspended production lines (Nexteel Co. et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03898).

Agricultural net wraps for baling hay or other silage are not "parts" of agricultural machinery, but rather an input classifiable as fabric, the government said in a July 15 brief at the Court of International Trade (RKW Klerks Inc. v. U.S., CIT #20-00001).