The U.S. and antidumping petitioner Wind Tower Trade Coalition failed to show that the Commerce Department followed its standard "cost-smoothing" practice when it rejected respondent Marmen Energy's "product-specific plate costs as unreasonable," Marmen said in a Jan. 30 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Marmen v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1877).

The U.S. said in a Jan. 25 stipulation that it won't oppose an argument from Auxin Solar and Concept Clean Energy that the Court of International Trade has the power to tell the U.S. to reliquidate certain entries in a suit challenging the Commerce Department's pause on antidumping and countervailing duties covering solar cells from four Southeast Asian countries. The U.S. stipulation covers entries that were unliquidated as of the date of an order from CIT that accepts DOJ's stipulation but that subsequently liquidate before the case is resolved (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).

Importer MCM Technologies on Jan. 30 dismissed its suit challenging CBP's denial of its protest regarding the classification of its pet identification tags. The importer said the tags, which are classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8302.49.4000, qualify for an exclusion from Section 301 tariffs under secondary subheading 9903.88.4800. Counsel for MCM Technologies declined to comment (MCM Technologies v. U.S., CIT # 22-00005).

A whistleblower in a False Claims Act challenge, Brutus Trading, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take up its case so the court can clear up its own 2023 decision that found the government can voluntarily dismiss a qui tam FCA case brought by a whistleblower after not initially intervening in the case, and that the dismissal would be carried out under Rule 41(a) (Brutus Trading v. Standard Chartered, Sup. Ct. # 23-813).

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

Commerce incorrectly determined that discs, the inner structures of wheels, share the essential characteristics of wheels and are substantially the same products, an exporter said to the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 30 motion for judgment (Asia Wheel Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00143).

Importer Nutricia North America will appeal a December Court of International Trade decision finding that the company's baby formula and vitamins should be classified as food and not as pharmaceutical products (see 2312050028). Nutricia will argue at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that its goods, which are meant as dietary supplements for people with disabilities or ailments, fit under duty-free heading 3004 for "mixed or unmixed products for therapeutic or prophylactic use" packaged for retail sale. CBP put the entries under heading 2106, dutiable at 6.4%, as "food preparations not elsewhere specified or included" (Nutricia North America v. United States, CIT # 16-00008).

Importer Scottsdale Tobacco launched a case at the Court of International Trade to contest CBP's denial of its drawback claim on its Canadian-origin paper-wrapped cigarettes. Filing a complaint on Jan. 30, the importer said its drawback claim "met the requirements" for a substitution unused merchandise drawback of the federal excise taxes it paid, since it exported the cigarettes from Florida less than five years after the relevant imports (Scottsdale Tobacco v. United States, CIT # 24-00022).

Three importers of trailer wheels filed complaints in the Court of International Trade on Jan. 30 contesting the Commerce Department’s determination that their wheels were subject to antidumping and countervailing duties and the importers had attempted to evade them (Trailstar LLC v. U.S., CIT # 24-00021; Lionshead Specialty Tire and Wheel LLC v. U.S., CIT # 24-00020; Dexter Distribution Group LLC v. U.S., CIT # 24-00019).

A rebar exporter received a specific subsidy from the Turkish government’s tax exemption program for companies that engage in foreign exchange, the U.S. and countervailing duty petitioner said Jan. 29 in response to that exporter’s motion for summary judgment. They also said the exporter provided unreliable benchmark value data, justifying the Commerce Department’s use of data from the petitioner, the Rebar Trade Action Coalition, instead (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #23-00131).