Parties on the defendants’ side in two cases Feb. 21 opposed a motion of joinder in separate briefs, saying that, although both were litigating claims against an affirmative International Trade Commission injury determination in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on Mexican and Chinese rail couplers, their cases raise “unique” legal issues with little crossover (Amsted Rail Ind. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00268; Wabtec Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00157).

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

After a second remand, the Commerce Department said Feb. 22 that despite conducting a previously impossible on-site verification of the sole mandatory respondent for an AD investigation on forged steel fittings from India, its negative finding remained unchanged (Bonney Forge Corporation v. U.S., CIT #20-03837).

Judge Lisa Wang, confirmed to the Court of International Trade on Feb. 1, was assigned to her first case at the trade court. The matter was reassigned to Wang after Judge Stephen Vaden recused himself since his former law clerk appeared in the action (see 2402120046). The case was brought by the American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance to challenge CBP's determination in an Enforce and Protect Act proceeding that importer Scioto Valley Woodworking didn't evade the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wooden cabinets from China (see 2401230073) (American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance v. United States, CIT # 23-00140).

The U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska on Feb. 8 approved a settlement between shipping companies Kloosterboer International Forwarding and Alaska Reefer Management and CBP and DOJ in the companies' suit against Jones Act penalties levied against them. The settlement's terms will see KIF and ARM pay $9.5 million, much less than the over $400 million sought by CBP for the Jones Act violations (Kloosterboer International Forwarding v. U.S., D. Alaska # 3:21-00198).

Importer Sterling Products, doing business as Auxiliaries Group, voluntarily dismissed its customs suit at the Court of International Trade on its chillers and parts of shredders and granulators. CBP classified the chillers under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8418.69.0180, along with Section 301 duties under secondary subheading 9903.88.01, and the parts of shredders and granulators under subheading 8479.90.9496, along with Section 301 duties under secondary subheading 9903.88.01. The importer said the goods are free of the Section 301 duties under secondary subheadings 9903.88.10 and 9903.88.07, respectively (Sterling Products d/b/a ACS Auxiliaries Group v. U.S., CIT # 20-03877).

No lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade.

Exporter Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. and importer C&U Americas brought a suit to the Court of International Trade on Feb. 20 challenging the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China. The five-count complaint alleges a host of errors in the review, including on Commerce's use of partial adverse facts available (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00025).

An aluminum foil importer argued Feb. 20 that the Commerce Department was wrong to find that a South Korean exporter circumvented antidumping and countervailing duties on Chinese aluminum because the underlying Chinese inputs underwent “significant” processing (Hanon Systems Alabama Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00013).

Exporter Nanjing Kaylang Co. filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Feb. 20 contesting a Commerce Department scope ruling that found Kaylang's products made from phragmites are subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wooden cabinets and vanities from China (Nanjing Kaylang Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00045).