CBP erroneously classified importer Topcon Positioning System's rotating laser levels under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9031, the importer argued in a Sept. 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade. By failing to analyze the principal use of the laser levels, CBP neglected to properly classify the products under HTS subheading 9015,the complaint said (Topcon Positioning Systems, Inc. v. United States, CIT #14-00189).

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

Knit gloves with a plastic coating on the palm and on the front and sides of the fingers are classifiable as textile gloves of heading 6116, not articles of plastic of heading 3926, the Department of Justice said in a brief filed Sept. 17 with the Court of International Trade. The gloves are entirely described by the terms of heading 6116, and as such can’t be classified in the residual subheading for plastics, DOJ said (Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., CIT # 16-00150).

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

Australian exporter BlueScope Steel and its U.S. affiliate challenged the Commerce Department's decision to not deduct discounts and rebates from the company's normal value when setting its antidumping duty rate in an administrative review, in a Sept. 28 complaint at the Court of International Trade. BlueScope said that this decision cut against the agency's regulations and was "premised on a wholly inaccurate understanding of the data that BlueScope submitted" (BlueScope Steel Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00509).

The Commerce Department ditched its reliance on adverse facts available for respondent Hyundai Steel in remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade in a challenge to an antidumping review on cold-rolled steel flat products from South Korea. After giving Hyundai an opportunity to explain a discrepancy between two product codes, the agency accepted the explanation and thus dropped its adverse facts available finding. Commerce also rescinded its decision to apply the all-others rate to one of Hyundai's affiliated freight companies, dubbed "Company A" (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 19-00099).

Mobilier Rustique (Beauce) Inc. will appeal a recent Court of International Trade ruling that the Commerce Department cannot conduct expedited reviews of countervailing duty investigations, according to a Sept. 28 notice of appeal. In its remand results in the case, Commerce said that it could not find a statutory home for the expedited reviews conducted on a 2018 CVD order on softwood lumber from Canada. Chief Judge Mark Barnett sustained this finding in an August ruling (see 2108190002) (Mobilier Rustique (Beauce) Inc. v. United States, CIT #19-00164).

The Court of International Trade ruled once again Sept. 27 that the Commerce Department cannot make a particular market situation adjustment to the cost of production for the sales-below-cost test when calculating normal value. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves remanded the case to Commerce, finding that nothing in the statute permits such an adjustment.

The Commerce Department's decision to pick Mexico over Malaysia as a surrogate country in an antidumping duty investigation on Chinese quartz surface products was properly supported, the Court of International Trade said in a Sept. 24 opinion. Judge Leo Gordon upheld the determination, finding that the plaintiff, mandatory respondent Foshan Yixin Stone Company Limited, needed to prove that Malaysia was "the one and only reasonable surrogate country selection" -- something it failed to do.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied steel importer Transpacific Steel's motion for a full court rehearing of a panel decision to uphold President Donald Trump's Section 232 tariff hike on Turkish steel, in a Sept. 24 order. Transpacifc, along with several Turkish steel makers, moved for the panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, arguing that the panel's majority failed to impose the congressionally mandated limitations to the president's power in Section 232. Also, the petition argued that the majority improperly rejected the plaintiff appellees' equal protection claims (see 2108250022) (Transpacific Steel LLC, et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #20-2157).