The Court of International Trade granted importer Blockstream Services USA's bid to set aside the court's dismissal of the company's customs suit on the classification of its cryptocurrency miners. The suit was dismissed for failure to prosecute after Blockstream didn't move to extend the time for the case to remain on the customs case management calendar (see 2404030045). Blockstream had apologized to the court for the calendaring error that led to the dismissal. Judge Gary Katzmann granted the motion, and the case will remain on the case management calendar through March 31, 2026 (Blockstream Services USA v. United States, CIT # 22-00101).

An importer sought summary judgment April 3, arguing that their goods were physically and chemically different than tapered roller bearings and shouldn't be covered by an antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China. It accused the Commerce Department of enlarging the scope of the order (Precision Components v. U.S., CIT # 23-00218).

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

The U.S. and steel slab importer NLMK Pennsylvania on April 4 settled the importer’s 2021 case contesting the Commerce Department’s denial of its 58 exclusion requests that certain steel articles be excluded from Section 232 duties (NLMK Pennsylvania, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 21-0507).

In choosing a second mandatory respondent for a nearly 5-year-old Chinese passenger vehicle and light truck tires antidumping review and removing separate status from four other exporters that refused to participate, the Commerce Department fully complied with a 2023 Court of International Trade remand order (see 2302020032), the government said April 2 (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. U.S., CIT # 19-00069).

The Court of International Trade on April 4 upheld the Commerce Department's use of the invoice date rather than the contract date for the date of sale for respondents Kaptan Demir and Colakoglu Metalurji in the 2020-21 review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Turkey.

In April 3 oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the government said that the 1930 Tariff Act was recently amended to “explicitly not require” the Commerce Department to show that an exporter’s rate reflects its commercial reality (Pro-Team Coil Nail Enterprise v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2241).

An exporter alleged April 2 that the Commerce Department omitted “critical” pieces of evidence from the administrative record the agency filed with the Court of International Trade in a case involving a 2023 anti-circumvention inquiry on solar cells from Vietnam (Red Sun Energy Long An Company Limited v. U.S., CIT # 23-00229).

Court of International Trade Judge Gary Katzmann heard oral arguments April 1 in an Australian hot-rolled steel exporter’s challenge of an International Trade Commission's decision in an injury investigation to cumulate that exporter’s products with merchandise from other countries. The exporter argues that it also has invested $2.5 million into a U.S. manufacturing plant, so it has no incentive to injure its own domestic market (BlueScope Steel v. U.S., CIT # 22-00353).

Importer Blockstream Services USA on April 3 moved to set aside the Court of International Trade's April 1 order dismissing its tariff classification challenge for failure to prosecute (see 2404020013) (Blockstream Services USA v. U.S., CIT # 22-00101).