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).

A number of Canadian lumber exporters moved for judgment upon the agency record in a softwood lumber case April 5. So did defendant-intervenors led by a domestic petitioner group, which said that the Commerce Department should have subtracted countervailing duty costs from the exporters’ U.S. prices (Government of Canada v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00187).

The trade court asked both parties in a case for supplemental briefing addressing whether note 3 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule’s section XVI should be applied to a supermodule that goes into power plants. The U.S. claims that the product should be analyzed under note 2, which it said was mutually exclusive with note 3; the importer, HyAxiom, advocates for interpretation under note 3 (HyAxiom v. U.S., CIT # 21-00057).

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

Importer Cambridge Isotope Laboratories told the Court of International Trade April 9 that following consultations with petitioner Committee for Fair Trade in Ammonium Sulfate, it has filed a new changed circumstances review request with the Commerce Department (Cambridge Isotope Laboratories v. U.S., CIT # 23-00080).

An exporter of vehicle side bars said April 8 that Section 301 tariff exclusions shouldn't necessarily be considered princpal use provisions, but should instead be analyzed as either principal use, eo nomine or actual use provisions on a case-by-case basis because no published guidance singles out a specific method (Keystone Automotive Operations v. U.S., CIT # 21-00215).

On April 8, an importer sought to withdraw its motion to compel the government to give it certain unredacted documents and the addresses of several former CBP employees “relevant” to its case (see 2310160061) (Lutron Electronics Co. v. U.S.​​​​, CIT # 22-00264).

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

The U.S. on April 9 requested that the Court of International Trade not allow plaintiffs to add a new party in a case contesting the final results of the Commerce Department's fourth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel from Italy (ArcelorMittal Tubular Products v. U.S., CIT # 24-00039).