A glycine exporter moved for judgment July 23 in a case charging that the Commerce Department unreasonably rejected its allegedly “duplicative” scope ruling application after a previous request, which the exporter argued lacked key information, resulted in a ruling it disagreed with (Deer Park Glycine v. U.S., CIT # 24-00016).

The Court of International Trade in a confidential July 22 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's decision to continue using adverse facts available against countervailing duty respondent The Ancientree Cabinet Co. related to its alleged receipt of benefits under China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. Judge Richard Eaton said he intends to issue a public version of the decision "in the near future," giving the parties until July 29 to review the opinion for confidential information (Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co. v. U.S., CIT # 20-00110).

The U.S. on July 22 moved the Court of International Trade to dismiss Byungmin Chae's challenge to CBP's rejection of his appeal of a question on the April 2018 customs broker license exam. The Nebraska resident, who ultimately fell one question shy of a passing score, previously challenged his results on the exam, including to the U.S. Supreme Court, which denied rehearing (see 2401230031) (Byungmin Chae v. U.S., CIT # 24-00086).

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

Canada-based Midwest-CBK's sales to U.S. customers weren't "for export" to the U.S. and therefore don't have a "transaction value" for the assignment of import duties, the company told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Filing a reply brief on July 19, Midwest-CBK said the goods should have been "appraised via deductive value" and that its goods were deemed liquidated since CBP didn't have an adequate basis to extend the liquidation of its entries (Midwest-CBK v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1142).

Antidumping and countervailing duty petitioners, led by Atlas Tube, said the Commerce Department properly used adverse facts available against exporter Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co. in three anti-circumvention inquiries for untimely submitting questionnaire responses in a "straightforward case" (Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00248).

A domestic producer of chlorine for use in residential pools argued in a July 17 motion for judgment that the Commerce Department once again bypassed a more suitable surrogate country in a review because it emphasized the comparative economic development over actual production of identical products (Bio-Lab v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 24-00024).

The Korean government filed a brief in defense of a South Korean steel exporter and plaintiff July 12, adding its own opinion directly to a case discussing the long-standing controversy surrounding the Commerce Department’s finding of de jure specificity in the Korean steel industry’s use of Korea’s cap-and-trade emissions program (see 2406200062) (POSCO v. U.S., CIT # 24-00006).

Because no party now opposes the results of a remanded scope ruling on engines with horizontal crankshafts from China, the government asked the Court of International Trade on July 18 to sustain the ruling (Zhejiang Amerisun Technology Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00011).

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade: