The Canadian Government, along with its other plaintiffs in a countervailing duty case, will appeal a March Court of International Trade decision upholding the Commerce Department's positions on all five issues under contention in a dispute involving wind towers from Canada. According to the May 16 notice of appeal, the Canadian Government, along with the Government of Quebec, Marmen Inc., Marmen Energie and Marmen Energy Co., will take their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (The Government of Quebec v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-00168).

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

Section 232 national security tariffs are not remedial and should not be deducted from an antidumping duty respondent's U.S. price, and their inclusion in that price does not constitute double counting of duties, AD petitioner Nucor Corp. argued in a May 13 reply brief that came in response to arguments to the contrary from Nippon Steel Corp. (Nippon Steel Corporation v. U.S., CIT #21-00533).

Australian steel exporter BlueScope Steel, along with its affiliates Australian Iron & Steel and BlueScope Steel Americas, voiced their support for the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty case at the Court of International Trade. Filing comments at CIT on May 16, BlueScope backed Commerce's position which slashed the antidumping duties for BlueScope from 99.20% to 4.95% after dropping its reliance on adverse facts available based on BlueScope's U.S. sales quantity and value reporting data (BlueScope Steel Ltd. v. United States, CIT #19-00057).

Importer Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing will appeal to the Federal Circuit a March Court of International Trade opinion ruling that CBP properly classified eight models of gloves as knit textile gloves, rather than as gloves made of plastics, according to a May 13 notice of appeal. At CIT,, Judge Timothy Stanceu said that CBP correctly classified the gloves, which were imported from China and South Korea in 2015 (see 2203280037) (Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing v. U.S., CIT #16-00150).

Importer Root Sciences will appeal an October 2021 Court of International Trade opinion that said that the court did not have jurisdiction over CBP's seizure of Root's goods. According to the May 13 notice of appeal, Root will take its case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the opinion, the trade court ruled that since the seizure of an import does not deem a product excluded, thus precluding any protestable event, jurisdiction is barred at CIT for seized goods (see 2110070022). Root filed the case after CBP seized one of its cannabis crude extract recovery machines as "drug paraphernalia" (Root Sciences v. United States, CIT #21-00123).

The Commerce Department violated the law in finding that Nur Gemicilik is a cross-owned input supplier of Turkish exporter and mandatory countervailing duty review respondent Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret, Kaptan argued in a May 12 complaint at the Court of International Trade. While Nur provided Kaptan with scrap generated from its shipbuilding enterprise, the amount was "extremely miniscule," precluding Nur from being a cross-owned input supplier, the complaint said (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #22-00149).

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

The Commerce Department's decision to accept mandatory antidumping duty respondent Gujarat Fluorochemicals Limited's method for reporting its U.S. movement expenses was illegal, U.S. manufacturer Daikin America argued in a May 12 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Gujarat Fluorochemicals' ignored Commerce's instructions to report its sales expenses on a transaction-specific basis, which should have prompted the use of adverse facts available, the complaint said (Daikin America v. United States, CIT #22-00122).

The Court of International Trade assigned two customs actions brought by Beverly Hills watchmaker Ildico to Judge Jane Restani, the court said in two May 12 orders. Ildico filed the case to argue that its imported wristwatches within gold bezels and cases and with synthetic sapphires on front and back should be classifiable as wrist watches with precious metal cases of heading 9101, rather than as CBP liquidated them under subheading 9102 as other wrist watches (see 2204290030) (Ildico Inc. v. U.S., #18-00076, -00136).