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).

Petitioners and an Indian freshwater shrimp exporter on April 16 both filed briefs opposing each other’s motions for judgment (see 2402080060). The petitioners said that the exporter was attempting to go against the Commerce Department's usual practice regarding interest expenses offsets, while the exporter claimed the petitioners had no evidence its home-market sales were destined for consumption elsewhere (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v U.S., CIT # 23-00202).

A Russian pipe exporter contested the International Trade Commission's redetermination upon remand that Russian pipe imports into the U.S. were injuring domestic industry (see 2402120048). It said the ITC didn’t make any changes to its analysis in the redetermination, contrary to an order by the Court of International Trade (PAO TMK v. U.S., CIT # 21-00532).

The International Trade Commission’s October order preventing Apple from importing its Series 9 and Ultra 2 watches based on allegations of patent infringement by medical device company Masimo -- which doesn’t currently sell its watches in the U.S. -- “creates serious risks for U.S. businesses,” NetChoice said Monday in a news release.

Three German exporters, led by Ilsenburger Grobblech, opposed the U.S. government's motion for an extension of time to file its response brief in an appeal of the antidumping duty investigation on cut-to-length carbon and alloy steel plate from Germany. The U.S. asked for a six-day extension, but Ilsenburger said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has already given the government a 37-day extension and that the additional six days would effectively double the time under the court's rules to file a response brief (Ilsenburger Grobblech v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1219).

In a third amended scheduling order, the Court of International Trade set a new Aug. 13 deadline for motions in a case that has been ongoing since 2022. The extension follows an amended complaint filed April 1 in which plaintiff Zoetis Services said that CBP had classified a “nearly identical” product to its own under a Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading it preferred (Zoetis Services LLC v. U.S., CIT #22-00056).

A petitioner in a review of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain chassis and subassemblies from China filed a consent motion April 10 to intervene in a case challenging that review brought by importer Pitts Enterprises. The Coalition of American Chassis Manufacturers said it intends to join the case on the side of Pitts to litigate the Commerce Department’s interpretation of the orders’ language (Pitts Enterprises, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00030).

Parkdale and the government filed a joint motion April 11 requesting more time to consider whether the company could file its case challenging CBP’s denial of its mixed-use drawback claims before repaying the accelerated drawback it received (see 2205180046). The motion says Parkdale recently sent CBP a letter with the company’s position on “whether the re-payment of accelerated drawback constitutes a liquidated duty under 28 U.S.C. § 2637, and therefore required to be paid to the government before this action was commenced,” as planned in a previous extension motion in December (Parkdale America v. U.S., CIT # 22-00019).

A domestic petitioner said April 11 that it supports the Commerce Department’s result after a second remand that an Indonesian biodiesel exporter’s antidumping and countervailing duties hadn’t overlapped to create a double remedy -- a conclusion the department reached after it reluctantly conducted a court-ordered pass-through analysis (see 2403130049). The exporter also announced earlier that it wouldn't be submitting comments in opposition (Wilmar Trading PTE Ltd. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 18-00121).