The U.S. urged the Court of International Trade to sustain the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty case accepting minutes-late submissions, given that no party filed comments opposing the remand. Submitting its May 5 comments at CIT, DOJ said Commerce fully followed court instructions in accepting the late submissions and reverting to partial adverse facts available rather than full AFA (Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi v. U.S., CIT #21-00045).

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

The Court of International Trade should toss steel importer Rimco's challenge to the antidumping and countervailing duties it paid for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, proposed defendant-intervenor Accuride argued in a May 4 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The case should be dismissed because CIT isn't the proper jurisdiction for the importer's challenge to the Commerce Department's decisions, the company argued (Rimco v. United States, CIT #21-00537).

The Court of International Trade in a May 4 confidential order sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a case over the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pasta from Italy. In a letter on the opinion, Judge Richard Eaton said that he hopes to release the public version "in the near future" and that litigants should submit their reviews of the opinion to check for business confidential information by May 11. In the case, Commerce stuck by its decision to hit affiliated antidumping respondents Ghigi 1870 and Pasta Zara with an adverse inference over their U.S. payment dates (see 2202280052). However, the agency dropped the adverse inference on the U.S. sales for which Commerce verified the correct date. The result is a weighted-average dumping margin of 91.74% for Ghigi/Zara (Ghigi 1870 S.P.A. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-00023).

The International Trade Commission erred when it found that revocation of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin from Oman would lead to a continuation or recurrence of injury to the domestic PET resin industry within a foreseeable time, Omani exporter OCTAL argued. Filing a complaint at the Court of International Trade May 2, OCTAL argued that the ITC violated the law when it either ignored or failed to adequately address contrary evidence relating to whether the revocation of the orders would lead to injury to the U.S. industry (OCTAL Inc. v. United States, CIT #22-00135).

The Court of International in a May 2 order granted importer DSM Nutritional Products' consent motion to set up a test case in its customs spat over how to classify beta-carotene products. The motion places six other cases under one action -- five of which were brought by DSM and the other by American International Chemical. All the cases concern the tariff classification of beta-carotene products that CBP placed under HTS subheading 2106.90.99, which provides for "food preparations not elsewhere specific or included," dutiable at 6.4%. The importers argue for the products to be classified under subheading 2936.90.01, which provides for "provitamins," free of duty (DSM Nutritional Products v. United States, CIT #17-00136).

CBP wrongly classified importer Mast Industries' ladies' knitted tops with a built-in shelf bra, Mast argued in a series of complaints on May 2 at the Court of International Trade. CBP liquidated the tops under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6109.10.00, which covers tank tops and similar garments, knitted or crocheted, made of cotton, dutiable at 18.3%, among other subheadings. Mast said that its tops should be classified under subheading 6114.20.00, which provides for other garments, knitted or crocheted, made of cotton, dutiable at 10.8% to 11.1%, among other subheadings. Mast said that its cases were similar to a series of lawsuits filed by Victoria's Secret Direct wherein the court held that "knitted outer garments which provide significant body coverage and bust support are classifiable under heading 6114, HTSUS," the complaints said (Mast Industries v. United States, CIT #01-00859, #02-00198, #02-00199, #02-00200, #03-00428, #03-00714, #03-00879, #04-00274, #05-00025, #07-00112, #07-00159, #10-00053, #10-00227, #11-00024).

Beverly Hills watchmaker Ildico filed two separate complaints with the Court of International Trade on April 28, arguing its imported wristwatches within gold bezels and cases and 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 (Ildico Inc. v. U.S., #18-00076, -00136)

The Court of International Trade in an April 28 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's move to drop Section 232 duties from antidumping duty review respondent Power Steel's U.S. price for two entries of steel concrete rebar. The result is a de minimis dumping rate for Power Steel. In the one-page order, Judge Jane Restani said that as no party intends to submit further filings, the remand is sustained.

The Court of International Trade in an April 29 order consolidated two cases challenging CBP's Enforce and Protect Act investigation into the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. The cases, one brought by Kingtom Aluminio, and the other brought by Industrial Feliciano Aluminum, J.L. Trading Corp. and Puertas y Ventanas, contest CBP's position that Kingtom evaded the orders by transshipping aluminum extrusions through the Dominican Republic. Kingtom filed its complaint on April 8, arguing that CBP's position that Kingtom had exports subject to the orders is an abdication of its responsibility to conduct AD/CVD administrative reviews (see 2204110031) (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00072).