A lawsuit at the Court of International Trade filed by an individual who failed their customs broker license test was assigned to Judge Mark Barnett, in a Feb. 17 order. The case was filed by Shuzhen Zhong (see 220211002) without an attorney and 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. While no attorney is listed for Zhong, Luke Mathers of the Justice Department's International Trade Field Office appeared for the government (Shuzhen Zhong v. United States, CIT #22-00041).

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).

Products from importer SMA Surfaces meet all four of the criteria for an exclusion from the antidumping and countervailing duties on quartz surface products from China, and the Commerce Department never addressed "unrefuted evidence" which shows that one of its products satisfies the key fourth criteria for this exclusion, the importer argued in a Feb. 16 brief at the Court of International Trade (SMA Surfaces v. United States, CIT #21-00399).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found an appendix filed by plaintiff-appellant Uttam Galva Steel Limited in a countervailing duty challenge to not be in compliance with the court's rules (Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2119). The court said that any multi-volume appendix must have a volume number in Roman numerals with the pages included in the volume at the top of the cover of each volume. Further, a confidential version of the appendix must have any relevant excerpts of statutes imposing confidentiality or the "entirety of any judicial or administrative protective order" at the beginning. The court also said that the appendix failed to contain the required proof of service or that the proof of service shows improper service of material that cannot be served through the e-filing system.

Antidumping respondent Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V., along with its U.S. affiliate, will appeal a December Court of International opinion that found that the Commerce Department can reduce an antidumping duty review respondent's U.S. price by the amount of their Section 232 duties paid. According to the Feb. 16 notice of appeal, Deacero will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the opinion, the trade court also said that Commerce does not have to notify the respondent that it intends to reduce the U.S. price by the amount of Section 232 duties paid since notice and comment procedures don't apply to AD administrative procedures (see 2112200051). The case concerns an AD administrative review on rebar from Mexico (Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. v. United States, CIT #20-03924).

Tire exporter Pirelli Tyre signed off on the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty case that said the company properly showed that it wasn't under Chinese government control for the first 10 months of an AD review period. Pirelli, a consolidated plaintiff in the AD action, sued to contest Commerce's failure to make this determination (Qingdao Sentury Tire Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #18-00079).

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

The International Trade Commission can't use export data when making a critical circumstances determination to find whether a surge in imports undermines the remedial effect of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders in question, plaintiff MTD Products said in a Feb. 11 reply brief (MTD Products Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00264).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an antidumping case brought by Vietnamese exporter Godaco Seafood Joint Stock Co. following the company's motion to voluntarily dismiss the case. Godaco was appealing a Court of International Trade decision affirming the Commerce Department's results of the 2015-16 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on fish fillets from Vietnam, in which the court initially rejected the agency's separate rate calculation. Commerce originally calculated the separate rate by averaging the separate rates from the previous four administrative reviews. The court then upheld the calculation after the agency based the separate rate on more contemporaneous data (see 2109270035). No reason was given for the requested dismissal (Godaco Seafood Joint Stock Company v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1202).

The Court of International Trade denied a motion to stay in a challenge to the all-others rate in a countervailing duty administrative review until a decision is made on a motion to dismiss the case. Denying the motion from petitioner Dexstar Wheel in a text order, Judge Mark Barnett ordered that a joint proposed briefing schedule be submitted by close of business on Feb. 15. Rimco filed the lawsuit challenging the Commerce Department's all-others rate in the countervailing duty review of steel wheels 12 to 16.5 inches in diameter from China. Dexstar argued that Commerce did not actually set an all-others rate in the review since the only two respondents for which rates were given received the China-wide adverse facts available rate. The petitioner moved to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim (see 2201250070) (Rimco v. United States, CIT #21-00588).