In an April 1 complaint contesting the final results of a 2021-2022 antidumping duty review, a Taiwanese exporter of steel nails said that the Commerce Department shouldn’t have used the financial records of an automotive parts exporter to calculate its own home market profit and selling expenses. The automotive parts exporter sold “entirely different types of products,” it said (Your Standing International Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00055).

The Court of International Trade on April 1 dismissed a customs suit from Blockstream Services USA for lack of prosecution. The suit was put in the customs case management calendar and not removed "at the expiration of the applicable period of time of removal." Blockstream Services brought the action to contest the classification of its cryptocurrency miners. CBP put the items under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8543.70.9960, dutiable at 2.6%, while the company argued for subheading 8471.50.0150, free of duty (Blockstream Services USA v. U.S., CIT # 22-00101).

The U.S. sought a default judgment April 2 in its case against Cherish Your Health Food Inc., a Chinese fresh garlic exporter that the government said hadn’t paid antidumping duties on five entries (U.S. v. Cherish Your Health Food Inc., CIT # 23-00230).

A number of consolidated plaintiffs moved for summary judgment April 1 on a second issue in a case opposing a scope inquiry and affirmative circumvention finding regarding the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China (Shelter Forest International Acquisition v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00144).

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

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

The U.S. on March 25 supported the Commerce Department’s voluntary remand results that used an Italian steel exporter’s quarterly costs methodology to calculate its steel’s value and assigned the exporter a de minimis rate (Officine Tecnosider SRL v. U.S., CIT # 23-00001).

An Indian exporter of granular polytetrafluorethylene, the generic version of Teflon, said March 27 that the “minute” amount of wind energy produced by an affiliate was not “primarily directed” at its own own PTFE manufacturing because electricity from certain sources can't be earmarked for any particular process (Gujarat Fluorochemicals v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1268).

During oral arguments March 26 for weekly and monthly planner classification case, Court of International Trade Judge Jane Restani told parties that the Harmonized Tariff Schedule is written in British, not American, English (Blue Sky The Color of Imagination v. U.S., CIT # 21-00624).

The Court of International Trade on March 26 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in the 2020-21 antidumping duty review on hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan. Judge Stephen Vaden said that since no party contests the remand results, which were voluntarily requested by Commerce so the agency could treat exporter Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co. as a mandatory respondent, the case is upheld (Optima Steel International v. U.S., CIT # 23-00108).