The argument that a Turkish duty drawback program fails to qualify for a drawback adjustment in an antidumping duty case disregards "decades of [Commerce Department] precedent" over the program, Turkish exporter Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret said in a Feb. 22 brief at the Court of International Trade. Responding to AD petitioner Aluminum Association Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet Trade Enforcement Working Group, Assan said that the Turkish Inward Processing Regime (IPR) has repeatedly been found by Commerce to be eligible for a duty drawback adjustment by passing the agency's two-prong analysis on drawback (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #21-00246).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit set April 6 as the date for oral argument in a key case on the use of first sale valuation for goods from nonmarket economies. In Meyer v. U.S., the Court of International Trade said that first sale treatment may not be applicable to NME exports (see 2103020040). Litigation is underway at the Federal Circuit over the question, with Meyer most recently arguing that the trade court improperly applied the "dual burden of proof" when denying the importer first sale since the court simply accepted CBP's move of valuing the imports based on their second sale price without scrutiny (see 2201190059) (Meyer Corporation v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-1932).

The Commerce Department improperly withdrew a questionnaire issued to an antidumping duty and countervailing duty respondent, Repwire and Jin Tiong said in a pair of identical complaints filed Feb. 21 at the Court of International Trade. Commerce's subsequent refusal to accept Jin Tiong's questionnaire responses led the agency to then illegally apply an adverse facts available rate, the companies said (Repwire v. United States, CIT #22-00016) (Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer v. United States, CIT #22-00023).

A Commerce Department scope ruling improperly found two-ply hardwood plywood falls under the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China because the scope language clearly says that subject merchandise consists of a minimum of three plies, said three companies, Vietnam Finewood, Far East American and Liberty Woods, in a Feb. 18 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Vietnam Finewood Company Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #22-00049).

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

A challenge by mattress importers to the Commerce Department's use of a statistical test in its effort to root out "masked" dumping should be dismissed because the importers suffered no injury, the Department of Justice and antidumping petitioners said in a pair of Feb. 17 reply briefs. The Court of International Trade, DOJ and the petitioners said the test was inconsequential to the antidumping duty matter, making the challenge to it moot (Ashley Furniture Industries v. United States, CIT #21-00283).

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

Tobacco wraps importer New Image Global argued at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the Court of International Trade should not have allowed the results of a flawed customs test into evidence. The importer is fighting for a lower excise tax on its tobacco wraps, which were classified by the government as roll-your-own tobacco, subjecting them to the excise tax. The wraps are made with ethanol, which "gasses off" when the package is opened and the wrap is exposed to air. New Image has argued that this process will shed between 10% and 13% of the wraps' weight by the time they reach the final consumer and notes that "any lab test that finds that sealed wraps gain weight in storage and transit from the Mexican factory to the United States is inherently unreliable" (New Image Global v. United States, Fed. Cir. #19-2444).

Hallmark Cards, along with its insurer, Continental Insurance Company, is suing Swiss-based shipping firm MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company in a New York district court for damaging two containers of Hallmark merchandise in transit to Asia. In its Feb. 15 complaint at the District Court for the Southern District of New York, Hallmark and Continental said that MSC was negligent in its failure to deliver the cargo, thereby breaching its "statutory, contractual, and/or common law duties and obligations" as a carrier of the merchandise (Continental Insurance Company v. MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company, S.D.N.Y. #22-1272).

Shipping company Planet Nine Private Air's counterclaims in a case on the company's alleged gross negligence in handling a hemp shipment should be "dismissed in their entirety," plaintiff We CBD said in a reply brief filed at the District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. We CBD argued that many of the claims are conclusory and do not allege any facts and will also be resolved during the litigation of We CBD's claims (We CBD v. Planet Nine Private Air, W.D.N.C. #21-00352)