Correction: The Commerce Department on March 12 conducted "under respectful protest" a pass-through analysis to show, by court order, that an Indonesian tax program that lowered the cost of an input wasn't being double counted by antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on biodiesel from Indonesia. The agency continued to find that there was no double remedy and that it could disregard some sales due to a particular market situation (see 2403130049).

In a March 13 complaint, a tire importer alleged that CBP refused to physically release two entries of its tires despite releasing them in its system and despite the importer having completed all the proper paperwork and paid the necessary fees (Inspired Ventures, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 24-00062).

In a long-delayed motion for summary judgment in a case that began in 2018, a Swiss watch importer argued that CBP had relied on the wrong definitions of "watch crystal” and “watch case” when it misclassified its entries at a higher duty rate (Ildico Inc. v. U.S., CIT #s 18-00136, -00076).

The Commerce Department on March 12 said that on remand it treated exporter Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co. as a mandatory respondent in the 2020-21 review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan, assigning the company a 5.2% AD rate. The agency asked for the remand so it could grant the exporter mandatory respondent status following a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision that said Commerce must use more than one mandatory respondent where multiple companies request review (see 2208290026) (Optima Steel International v. U.S., CIT # 23-00108).

Exporter Hyundai Steel Co. argued against the Commerce Department's finding that the South Korean government's provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration is de facto specific in the 2021 countervailing duty review on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea. Filing a motion for judgment on March 12, Hyundai claimed that the record doesn't show that the steel industry "received a disproportionately large amount of this subsidy" as required by a de facto specificity analysis (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00211).

In a March 8 brief, antidumping and countervailing duty petitioners argued that their case raises an “important issue of first impression for this Court” because it asks whether CBP’s Office of Rulings and Regulations is allowed to reverse evidence-based evasion determinations made at the conclusion of CBP Trade Remedy Law Enforcement Directorate investigations (American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance v. U.S., CIT # 23-00140).

The Court of International Trade on March 11 granted importer Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co.'s motion to voluntarily dismiss 12 of its customs suits. The voluntary dismissal bid comes after the importer lost a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case on the classification of its textile gloves with a plastic coating on the palm and fingers (see 2312060028). The appellate court said the gloves are classified as gloves under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 6116, not as articles of plastics under heading 3926 (Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co v. U.S., CIT # 16-00036, -00040, -00044, -00149, -00151, -00152, -00153, -00166, 17-00001, -00003, -00004 and -00098).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on March 12 affirmed a federal D.C. court's dismissal of Venezuelan national Samark Jose Lopez Bello's suit against his designation as a narcotics trafficker under the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (Samark Jose Lopez Bello v. Andrea M. Gacki, D.C. Cir. # 21-01727).

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

The language of AD/CVD orders on steel wheels from China doesn't prevent the Commerce Department from conducting a substantial transformation analysis on wheels that only have one Chinese-origin component out of two, the U.S. said in a March 8 brief opposing a plaintiff’s motion for judgment (Asia Wheel v. U.S., CIT # 23-00096).