The Court of International Trade reported that it settled all issues via mediation in two cases over the Commerce Department's denial of Section 232 exclusion requests. The mediation, held by Judge Leo Gordon, was ordered after the consolidated plaintiffs' request for a status conference was denied as moot. The plaintiffs wanted the status conference to discuss the availability of a remedy for already-liquidated entries, but the specifics of mediation were not made known (N. Am. Interpipe, Inc. v. U.S., CIT #20-03825) (Allegheny Technologies Incorporated, et al. v. U.S., CIT #20-03923).

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

State marijuana legalization laws do not create an exemption to the federal ban on importation of drug paraphernalia, the Department of Justice said in a Jan. 31 filing at the Court of International Trade. Arguing against an importer's motion for judgment in the case, as well as its own cross-motion for judgment in November (see 2111100047), DOJ says an exemption from the federal ban at 21 USC 863 for any "person authorized by local, state, or federal law to manufacture, possess, or distribute such item" is not triggered by state laws that legalize marijuana across the board (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, CIT #21-00287).

Steel company Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company, plaintiff in an antidumping scope challenge, signed off on the Commerce Department's remand results excluding the exporter's dual-stenciled pipe from the scope of the order. In October, the Court of International Trade said that Commerce was wrong to include the dual-stenciled pipe in the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, seeing as there was no International Trade Commission injury determination on line pipe from Thailand (see 2110070029). On remand, Commerce excluded dual-stenciled pipe from the order under respectful protest. Saha Thai said these results comply with the court's orders and should be sustained (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company, Limited v. United States, CIT #20-00133).

The Court of International Trade should throw out Wheatland Tube's case intended to compel CBP to respond to the company's requests for information and a tariff classification ruling because Wheatland has received all the relief to which it is legally entitled, the Department of Justice said in a Feb. 2 motion to dismiss the case. CBP has already responded to this RFI and the petition for a tariff classification ruling over the company's electrical conduits from Mexico, DOJ said. CBP also told Wheatland it agrees with the company's stance on the correct classification of its steel conduit pipe and was defending this position in separate litigation (Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00004).

A group of gun manufacturers' and one gun distributor's bid to toss a case filed by the Mexican government alleging that the defendants carry out illegal selling practices that facilitate the trafficking of weapons into Mexico falls flat, the Mexican government argued in a Jan. 31 reply brief. Filing its reply at the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the Mexican government said that the manufacturers and distributor improperly seek legal shelter under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, since the protection from lawsuit entailed in this act only applies to harm caused in the U.S. and not in Mexico, as the Mexican government alleges (Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands, et al., D.C. Mass. #21-11269).

The Court of International Trade properly found that there was no statutory basis for conducting expedited countervailing duty reviews, plaintiff-appellee Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 31 reply brief. The language in certain sections of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act doesn't establish that Congress "clearly and unambiguously" meant for Commerce to set up CVD expedited review procedures, the committee said (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1021).

Thirteen U.S. states, along with Washington, D.C., two Latin American and Caribbean nations and a host of gun violence prevention organizations moved to appear as amici curiae to support the Mexican government's lawsuit against gun manufacturers, which alleges that they fueled violence in Mexico through illegal firearms sales practices (Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al., D.C. Mass. #21-11269).

Defendant-appellants in a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test said that the issue had already been decided by the Federal Circuit in a recent decision. In a letter to the appellate court, the defendant-appellants, Nucor Tubular Products, Atlas Tube and Searing Industries, said that they intend to seek initial en banc reconsideration in light of this opinion or a stay of further proceedings pending full resolution of this separate case (Dong-A Steel Company v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2153).

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