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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a May 23 order denied antidumping duty petitioner Wheatland Tube's motion to continue the stay in the appeal and AD respondent Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret's motion for summary affirmance. The case concerns the Commerce Department's move to make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test in the administrative review of the AD order on circular welded pipes from Turkey (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. Nucor Tubular Products Inc., United States, Fed. Cir. # 2021-2097, 2021-217)

Jacquelyn Traini, a lawyer listed as counsel for the U.S. in a key action over hefty Jones Act penalties, has withdrawn from the case and no longer will serve as counsel of record for the U.S. Copies of all pleadings will be sent instead to Assistant U.S. Attorney Siobhan McIntyre. The case was brought by two shipping companies contesting the over $25 million in Jones Act penalties for their shipments of fish from Alaska to the East Coast of the U.S. CBP said the two companies' seafood shipments from Alaska to the eastern U.S. via the Bayside, New Brunswick, Canada, port violate the Jones Act, which requires shipping between U.S. ports to be conducted by U.S.-flagged, -made and -owned ships. Kloosterboer International Forwarding and Alaska Reefer Management used a Canada-flagged ship (see 2109170048) (Kloosterboer International Forwarding v. U.S., D. Alaska #3:21-00198).

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 in a cross-motion for summary judgement filed with the Court of International Trade on May 23 (Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) Inc. v. United States, CIT #20-00131).

The Commerce Department's move to not fix a programming error in its antidumping margin calculation, which resulted in "irrelevant third country costs" getting assigned to sold but not produced products, was "unreasonable" and illegal, exporter Navneet Education Ltd. said in a May 23 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The result of such an error was "an overinflated and inaccurate dumping margin that did not reflect the reality of Navneet's de minimis margin that it should have received," the complaint said (Navneet Education Ltd. v. United States, CIT #22-00132).

CBP can reasonably interpret facts to establish that an importer is evading antidumping and countervailing duties in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation, and doesn't need to establish that no other conclusion could possibly be drawn from the record in an EAPA case, DOJ told the Court of International Trade in a brief filed May 20 (Leco Supply v. United States, CIT #21-00136).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a mandate on May 23 in a classication case affirming a 35% duty rate for StarKist's tuna salad pouches in agreement with CBP's classification following its March 30 opinion that upheld a previous decision by the Court of International Trade (see 2203300033). StarKist challenged CBP's classification under subheading 1604.14.10, which provides for prepared or preserved fish, including tuna, whole or in pieces, "but not minced" and "in oil."

Plaintiff and exporter Prosperity Tieh Enterprise Co. opposed a group of U.S. steel producers' motion in an antidumping duty case to hold an oral argument, telling the Court of International Trade that the motion is "unnecessary and disingenuous." In the May 20 filing, Prosperity argued that since the case has been going on for six years and the main issue in the case -- the decision to collapse mandatory respondents Yieh Phui Enterprise Co. and Synn Industrial Co. with one of their affiliates, Prosperity -- has been "extensively briefed," the need for oral argument is precluded (Prosperity Tieh Enterprise Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. #16-00138).

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

The Court of International Trade in a confidential May 19 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's final determination in the countervailing duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel threaded rod from China in a case brought by Chinese exporter Zhejiang Junyue Standard Part Co. The exporter filed the case to contest Commerce's use of adverse facts available over its inability to verify non-use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. In a letter on the opinion, Judge Richard Eaton told the parties to review the opinion and tell the court by May 26 if any of the bracketed information should remain confidential or if any non-bracketed information is confidential and should be redacted for the public version (Zhejiang Junyue Standard Part Co. v. United States, CIT #20-00102).