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

The Commerce Department wrongly countervailed benefits received by a Turkish rebar exporter under a law the department hadn’t known existed until the exporter noted it in a filing -- while rejecting that filing, said exporter claimed in a June 27 complaint (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #24-00096).

The U.S. and importer Fedmet Resources filed dueling briefs at the Court of International Trade discussing the impact of a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision in an antidumping scope case, Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. U.S.

The Court of International Trade on June 21 granted a group of Spanish olive growers' motion to dismiss five of its cases on various reviews of the countervailing duty order on ripe olives from Spain. The dismissals come after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected a challenge from the olive exporters regarding the Commerce Department's determination on whether demand for a processed agricultural product is "substantially dependent" on its raw upstream iteration for purposes of assigning countervailing duties (see 2405200045). CAFC said the trade court was wrong to impose a 50% threshold in determining substantial dependence (Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa v. United States, CIT # 24-00078, 23-00076, 23-00039, 22-00106, 21-00338).

Importer Atlas Power opposed the government's motion to withdraw one of its admissions of fact in a customs case on the assessment of Section 301 tariffs on graphics processing units. The U.S. moved the Court of International Trade to withdraw its admission that the subject merchandise is made "of parts of or accessories to ADP machines classified under subheading 8473.30.1180 of the HTSUS." Atlas said that its goods entered under subheading 8473.30.1180 and CBP didn't "object to the classification during the administrative proceedings leading to this litigation" (Atlas Power v. United States, CIT # 23-00084).

The Commerce Department was forced to use facts otherwise available in an investigation of Korean steel because the Korean government wasn't "forthcoming" when asked to provide data regarding an electricity subsidy’s costs, a petitioner said June 25 (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00211).

The U.S. moved to resolve a customs case brought by gunmaker Glock in favor of the company, offering to pay the importer refunds for royalty payments on its lone entry of pistol parts. The government said it wasn't "conceding or admitting to any factual or legal issues," but it would pay the refund "given the amount in controversy." Later cases on the valuation of the pistol parts will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, the brief said. The refund is less than $50 (Glock v. U.S., CIT # 23-00046).

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

The Commerce Department interpreted the scope of the antidumping duty order on cased pencils from China in a way that is "contrary to the plain language of its terms," importer School Specialty told the Court of International Trade in a June 28 complaint. The importer said the agency also misapplied the "substantial transformation test" in its scope ruling (School Specialty v. U.S., CIT # 24-00098).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 27 struck an entry of appearance filed by counsel for Encore Wire Corp., terminating the company as a defendant in a case on the 2019-20 antidumping review of aluminum wire and cable. The court said that the entry of appearance for three Cassidy Levy attorneys -- Myles Getlan, James Ransdell and Chase Dunn -- was noncompliant and that the attorneys failed to file a corrected version of the entry (Repwire v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1933).