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

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

A host of U.S. mattress producers and trade unions argued in a July 1 brief that the International Trade Commission's final affirmative injury determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on imported mattresses should be upheld at the Court of International Trade.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 6 order granted the unopposed motion from defendant-appellants, led by Atlas Tube, to dismiss the consolidated appeals of an antidumping duty case (Dong-A Steel v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2153). The case concerned whether the Commerce Department had the authority to grant a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test when calculating normal value in an AD proceeding. The key Hyundai Steel case at the Federal Circuit established that the agency didn't have that authority.

The Court of International Trade in a July 6 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's decision to grant a level-of-trade (LOT) adjustment for antidumping duty respondent Productos Laminados de Monterrey S.A. de C.V. (Prolamsa). Judge Timothy Stanceu sustained the LOT adjustment that Commerce made following the judge's initial remand order. The court ruled that petitioner Nucor Tubular Products' arguments that the higher selling expenses for one avenue of Prolamsa's trade were due to higher manufacturing costs and not higher selling expenses were "entirely speculative, if not illogical."

CBP improperly classified wearable blankets in contravention of its own guidance, said Cozy Comfort in a June 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Cozy Comfort v. U.S., #22-00173). The agency's rate advance ran counter to its own guidance that sherpa-lined garments are not classifiable in heading 6110.

The Commerce Department stuck by its decision to issue questionnaires in lieu of on-site verification due to the COVID-19-related travel restrictions in 2020 following an order from the Court of International Trade to either conduct verification virtually or further explain its original decision. The agency in June 30 remand results said that the plaintiffs, led by Bonney Forge, raised the issue of conducting a virtual verification too late and that mandatory respondent Shakti Forge Industries' questionnaire responses provide a "reasonable alternative" to on-site or remote verification (Bonney Forge Corporation v. United States, CIT #20-03837).

The Court of International Trade in a July 1 order granted the U.S.'s motion for entry of confession of judgment in a customs case on imported hardwood plywood from Richmond International Forest Products (RIFP). In all, Richmond filed four cases over 60 entries of hardwood plywood, which CBP classified as of Chinese-origin, assessing antidumping, countervailing and Section 301 duties, along with a merchandise processing fee. RIFP argued that the plywood is from Cambodia, filing a series of protests that CBP denied (Richmond International Forest Products Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00178).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 1 order denied three Mexican tomato exporters' bid for a panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in a case challenging the termination of an antidumping duty suspension agreement. Judges Kimberly Moore, Pauline Newman, Alan Lourie, Timothy Dyk, Sharon Prost, Richard Taranto, Raymond Chen, Todd Hughes, Kara Stoll, Tiffany Cunningham and Leonard Stark denied the petition from Agricola La Primaveria, Bioparques de Occidente and Kaliroy Fresh, while Judge Jimmie Reyna did not participate (Bioparques de Occidente v. United States, Fed. Cir. #20-2265, -2266, -2267).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 1 order dismissed antidumping duty petitioner Wheatland Tube's appeal of the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded pipe from Turkey, granting the company's unopposed motion to toss the case. Wheatland filed the appeal to contest the Court of International Trade's ruling that Commerce couldn't make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test. After the Federal Circuit issued its judgment in the key Hyundai Steel case, plaintiff Borusan Mannesmann moved for affirmance on the issue. Wheatland then moved to toss the case, stating that Hyundai Steel "controls the issues" in the present appeal (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2097).