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

Importers do not need to file protests as a prerequisite for gaining refunds on excluded Section 301 duties, Environment One Corporation said in a complaint filed April 15 with the Court of International Trade. The complaint asks the court to order refunds of Section 301 duties on entries that were "ordered retroactively excluded" from the China 301 duties and to declare the government's requirement that importers seek refunds via protest to be in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Protest Statute itself.

The Commerce Department properly decided not to individually investigate Siemens Energy's Spanish subsidiary Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy (SGRE) in an antidumping duty investigation, DOJ and AD petitioner Wind Tower Trade Coalition argued in two reply briefs at the Court of International Trade. DOJ said that the law is silent over how Commerce must proceed when all the initially picked respondents withdraw from the investigation, while the WTTC argued that it's not uncommon for Commerce to replace a mandatory respondent late in an investigation (Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy v. United States, CIT #21-00449).

The Commerce Department reasonably found that exporter Cheng Shin Rubber Ind. Co.'s tires did not qualify for a scope exclusion for light truck spare tires despite the petitioner agreeing to include specific exclusion language for Cheng Shin's tires, DOJ said in an April 13 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The exclusion requires that the tires be designed and marketed exclusively as temporary use spare tires for light trucks, and enough evidence sits on the record showing that this wasn't the case for Cheng Shin, the brief said (Cheng Shin Rubber Ind. Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00398).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 14 granted a bid from plaintiffs-appellants Deacero and Deacero USA to stay the briefing schedule in an antidumping duty challenge, pending the results of a related matter. Both cases concern whether the Commerce Department can deduct Section 232 duties from an antidumping duty respondent's U.S. price in the dumping margin calculations (Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1486).

Lithionics Battery and its founder and owner Steven Tartaglia violated the law by falsely claiming their battery and battery module products were made in the U.S., the Federal Trade Commission said in an April 12 complaint in a Florida district court. By doing so, the company and its founder violated the Made in the USA Labeling Rule, the complaint said (United States v. Lithionics Battery LLC, M.D. Fla. #8:22-00868). The case marks the first enforcement action under the agency's new labeling rules (see 2107010077), the agency said.

An individual who is challenging her failed customs broker test without a lawyer (see 2202170065) responded to DOJ's motion for a more definitive statement, in an April 14 brief at the Court of International Trade. The unusual filing responds to the U.S.'s request for a more clear legal claim by arguing that Brenda Smith, the executive assistant commissioner at CBP, made mistakes when responding to the plaintiff, Shuzhen Zhong, in her appeal of her customs broker test results. The case requests a review of the six questions that Zhong appealed to CBP in the test. Zhong took particular issue with CBP's getting both her address and gender wrong when returning the results of her appeal. In the filing, Zhong requested to be supplied with a pro bono lawyer (Shuzhen Zhong v. United States, CIT #22-00041).

Allegheny Technologies Inc. was granted refunds for Section 232 steel and aluminum duties paid on various entries following court-annexed mediation at the Court of International Trade, according to an April 13 stipulated judgment from the court. The case is the second of its kind to result in refunds for Section 232 duties paid following an initial challenge to the Commerce Department's denial of duty exclusion requests (Allegheny Technologies v. U.S., CIT #20-03923).

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

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