The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should grant exporter Borusan Mannesmann's motion for summary affirmance in its case over whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test, Borusan argued in a June 24 letter. Since the appellate court held Borusan's case in abeyance pending a petition for writ of certiorari from the court's decision in Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S. and no such petition was filed, the court should grant the affirmance motion, the brief said (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1502).

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

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

The Court of International Trade should not grant the U.S.'s motion seeking an extension of time to file a reply brief in a case over whether commercial airline operator NetJets Aviation failed to collect customs user fees for airline ticket purchases, NetJets argued in a June 24 brief. The plaintiff said that the U.S.'s motion seeking the extension is improperly based on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio's stay rules during mediation since NetJets and CBP also have a case in that court that would resolve the CIT case. The plaintiff said a mediation did not result in a stay in the district court and that no stay had been granted there. NetJets did, though, consent to a shorter extension of time so that the U.S. could file its reply (NetJets Aviation, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00142).

Importer Global Aluminum Distributor in a June 24 reply brief dropped its opposition to defendant-intervenor Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee's bid to lift the stay order at the Court of International Trade in an Enforce and Protect Act case looking into aluminum extrusions from China. The action was brought by H&E Home and Classic Metals Suppliers, later joined by Global Aluminum as a consolidated plaintiff, to contest the CBP's finding that the plaintiffs were evading the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions by transshipping them through the Dominican Republic. The case was stayed pending the resolution in another matter brought by Global Aluminum over CBP's evasion finding (H&E Home v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00337).

The Court of International Trade granted importer DS Services of America's motion for a preliminary injunction in its case seeking to reinstate a previously granted exclusion from Section 301 China duties for water coolers classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8418.69.0120. The court's order suspends the liquidation of the plaintiff's unliquidated entries while allowing the U.S. to continue to collect Section 301 duties, as the injunction is structured like a statutory injunction routinely entered in antidumping and countervailing duty cases (DS Services of America v. United States, CIT #22-00157).

The Court of International Trade should not grant Nucor Corporation's stay motion in a countervailing duty case because Nucor has not shown that a stay would facilitate an efficient resolution of the case or conserve the court's resources or that "any duplication of efforts outweighs the detrimental effects of its requested indefinite stay," the U.S. argued in a June 24 reply brief (Nucor Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00070).

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

Plaintiffs in an Enforce and Protect Act case and the U.S. filed a joint motion for judgment after CBP said in remand results at the Court of International Trade that it no longer believes importers Global Aluminum Distributor and Hialeah Aluminum Supply evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. In the joint motion, counsel for Global Aluminum, Hialeah, the U.S. and Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio said that the court should sustain the remand results since no party contests CBP's position. In the remand results, CBP took another look at the record and said that it cannot conclude that evasion took place (see 2206150047) (Global Aluminum Distributor v. United States, CIT #21-00198).

Court of International Trade Judge Jane Restani granted a motion from Beverly Hills watchmaker Ildico to consolidate two cases filed by the watchmaker in May, according to a June 23 ruling (Ildico Inc. v. U.S., #18-00076, -00136). The complaints argue that Ildico's imported wristwatches with gold bezels and cases and synthetic sapphires should be classified as duty-free "wrist watches with precious metal cases" of heading 9101, rather than as "other wristwatches" under subheading 9102 as classified by CBP (see 2204290030).