Air fryers are not ovens, and should not be classified as such, air fryer importer Tristar Products argued in its Oct. 20 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Kicking off its classification battle at CIT, Tristar argued that the air fryers don't belong under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading for ovens and should be spared the 25% Section 301 China tariffs levied on ovens (Tristar Products, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00563).

Importer Composite Technology International filed a trio of complaints at the Court of International Trade on Oct. 20 challenging CBP's tariff classification of its wooden stile and rail imports. When it denied Composite's protests, CBP pointed to a prior CIT ruling holding that the wooden stiles and rails fall under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4421.90.97, but Composite argues for classification under subheading 4412.99.51 (Composite Technology International, Inc. v. United States, CIT #17-00175, #17-00129, #17-00178).

The Commerce Department's decision to pick Turkey over Mexico as a surrogate country in an antidumping duty investigation was not backed by sufficient evidence, importer List Industries argued in an Oct. 14 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Seeing as the Mexican surrogate company's data was more detailed and that the company was actually profitable, unlike the Turkish company's, Commerce should have gone with the Mexican surrogate company, List said.

Turkish steel exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret kicked off litigation at the Court of International Trade in an Oct. 19 complaint over a countervailing duty review on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Turkey covering entries in 2018, arguing against the Commerce Department's finding that ship building company Nur Gemicilik ve Tic is a cross-owned input supplier of Kaptan (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States, CIT #21-00565).

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

Solar cell exporter Wuxi Tianran Photovoltaic Co. challenged the Commerce Department's application of adverse facts available relating to Tianran's benefits from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in an Oct. 20 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Tianran was hit with a 19.28% countervailing duty rate in the 2019 administrative review on solar cells from China, based on its alleged use of the EBCP -- a contention that Tianran says is refuted by clear record evidence showing that Tianran's customers did not use the program (Wuxi Tianran Photovoltaic Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #21-00538). CIT has repeatedly struck down Commerce's reliance on AFA in regards to the EBCP in CVD reviews.

The Court of International Trade ruled in an Oct. 18 opinion that the U.S. must respond to 25 of importer Greenlight Organic's requests for admissions in a customs fraud case. Having filed 116 of them, Greenlight, along with exporter Parambir Singh Aulakh, then moved to compel the U.S. to respond, hoping that they would narrow the scope of the fraud case and expedite the process. The court agreed with the U.S.'s objections to many of the RFAs, but ultimately granted the move to compel the U.S. to answer the remaining 25.

No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty review dropping a cost-based particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test, in an Oct. 19 order. Commerce dropped the PMS adjustment after the court previously found that the law does not permit such an adjustment for the purposes of calculating normal value (see 2106220064).

Consolidated plaintiff M S International will appeal an Oct. 7 Court of International Trade decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to an Oct. 18 notice of appeal. CIT ruled that the Commerce Department had enough industry support to kick off antidumping and countervailing duty investigations into quartz surface products from India (see 2110080035). The trade court held that Commerce has the right to define domestic “producers” of the subject merchandise for the purposes of finding out if enough industry support exists to launch the investigations. Judge Leo Gordon cited Federal Circuit precedent that Commerce is afforded Chevron deference in how it finds which companies are considered “producers” (Pokarna Engineered Stone Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00127).