Importer MKI Enterprise Group, doing business as Winbo USA, filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on April 22 to contest CBP's denial of a Section 301 exclusion for its entries of "steel side protective attachments for motor vehicles, specifically side bars, fern bars, and bars" from China (MKI Enterprise Group v. United States, CIT # 22-00131).

The Court of International Trade again remanded the Commerce Department's remand results in the 2018 review of the countervailing duty order on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea, in an April 19 confidential opinion. In a letter to the litigants, Judge Mark Barnett gave the parties until April 26 to review the confidential information in the opinion. Barnett said Commerce shall "reconsider or further explain" its decision not to investigate the off-peak sale of electricity allegedly for less than adequate remuneration.

Importer Saramax dismissed three customs cases it brought in 2000, 2003 and 2004 to contest the classification of its women's upper body garments. The company sought classification under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6212.90.00, dutiable at 6.8%, while CBP classified the goods under HTS subheading 6109.10.00, dutiable at 18.8% (Saramax v. United States, CIT # 00-00539, 03-00897, 04-00395).

A manufacturer must have attributed to them all subsidies received by a cross-owned input supplier’s upstream product that is “primarily dedicated to the production of the downstream product,” a domestic petitioner said in an April 17 brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. It also argued that the “downstream product” doesn’t need to be “subject merchandise” (Gujarat Fluorochemicals v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1268).

Alpinestars, an Italian exporter of motorcycle safety apparel, brought a short complaint to the Court of International Trade on April 18 (Alpinestars, SPA v. U.S., CIT # 11-00007).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed the government's appeal of a Court of International Trade decision scrapping a customs bond penalty action against surety firm American Home Assurance Co. The U.S. voluntarily dismissed the case (see 2404170042) (U.S. v. American Home Assurance Co., Fed. Cir. # 24-1069).

The U.S. filed a motion to dismiss a customs suit from importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Supply, claiming that for the 33 entries at issue, the lawsuit challenging the denied protests was untimely, the importer lacked standing to sue or that the company failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted (Acquisition 362 v. United States, CIT # 24-00011).

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

The U.S. voluntarily dismissed its customs penalty appeal brought against surety firm American Home Assurance Co., according to an April 17 joint stipulation of voluntarily dismissal filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (United States v. American Home Assurance Co., Fed. Cir. # 24-1069).

A trailer wheel exporter April 15 defended its motion to intervene as plaintiff-intervenor against a domestic producer’s opposition, saying that it's expressly considered an “interested party” under the Enforce and Protect Act (Dexter Distribution Group LLC v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 24-00019).