The Court of International Trade in a confidential June 18 decision sustained parts and remanded parts of the Commerce Department's second review of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. The court gave the parties until June 25 to review the confidential information in the decision (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. U.S., CIT # 19-00069).

On June 17, a convicted smuggler of dangerously bright vehicle headlights asked the Court of International Trade, on behalf of both himself and the U.S., for another three-month extension to continue negotiating the terms of a stipulated judgment in a customs penalty case (U.S. v. Chu-Chiang "Kevin" Ho, CIT # 19-00102).

The Commerce Department ignored the rulings in past cases when it reached de facto and de jure specificity findings regarding two broadly used Korean government programs, a Korean steel exporter said in a motion for judgment June 17 (POSCO v. U.S., CIT # 24-00006).

Defending the Commerce Department’s continued denial on remand of a canned foods importer’s Section 232 requests (see 2404020047), the U.S. said that the importer can submit new requests if domestic producers really can’t meet that importer’s needs (Seneca Foods Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00243).

The U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit scheduled oral argument for Sept. 16 at 9:30 a.m. on the two consolidated petitions for review challenging the constitutionality of the federal TikTok ban, said a clerk’s order June 17. TikTok and ByteDance challenge the ban on four constitutional grounds (see 2406070023). Their petition seeks a declaratory judgment that the ban violates the Constitution. It also seeks an order enjoining U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland from enforcing it (TikTok v. Merrick Garland, D.C. Cir. # 24-1113).

After two remands by Court of International Trade Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves, the Commerce Department continued to sustain its use of Brazilian and Malaysian surrogate data in the final results of its 2019-2020 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China, again assigning a plaintiff exporter a 16.17% AD margin (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00190).

Importer Vecoplan on June 17 dismissed one of its customs cases at the Court of International Trade regarding the classification of its grinding machines (Vecoplan v. United States, CIT # 20-00106).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 14 granted importer Diamond Tools Technology's voluntary dismissal of its Enforce and Protect Act appeal. The company took to the appellate court after it won its initial challenge to CBP's finding that it evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on Chinese diamond sawblades but lost its application for attorney's fees (see 2307310021) (Diamond Tools Technology v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1882).

Answering a question put forth to both parties by the Court of International Trade (see 2405230059), the U.S. said June 12 that CBP had made only a ministerial decision to liquidate a tire importer’s entries after being told to do so by the Commerce Department; and ministerial decisions, it argued, are not protestable and thus can't be litigated under 28 U.S.C. 1581(a) (Acquisition 362 v. U.S., CIT # 24-00011).

A plaintiff and glycine importer filed a brief June 13 at the Court of International Trade supporting inclusion into its case’s record a prior August 2033 scope ruling application, made by the plaintiff and denied by the Commerce Department, that the plaintiff said provided important context for its overall case (Deer Park Glycine v. U.S., CIT # 24-00016).