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

The U.S. and three importers filed a joint status report announcing they intend to settle several consolidated cases (see 2108190038) contesting the Commerce Department’s denials of the importers’ Section 233 steel tariff exclusion requests (Valbruna Slater Stainless.v. U.S., CIT #21-00027).

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).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 29 issued its mandate in a customs case on the classification of textile gloves with a plastic coating on the palm and fingers. The appellate court said the gloves fit under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 6116 as gloves and not as articles of plastic under heading 3926 (see 2312060028). Importer Magid argued that Section XI Note 1(h) excluded the gloves from heading 6116 and that the Federal Circuit's ruling in Kalle USA v. U.S., a case concerning sausage casing, precluded classification as textiles and apparel of Section XI (Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1793).

Various importers and exporters are looking to intervene in a suit from solar cell maker Auxin Solar and solar module designer Concept Clean Energy challenging the Commerce Department's pause of antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from Southeast Asian countries found to be circumventing the AD/CVD orders on these goods from China (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).

The U.S. swapped out its lead counsel in an antidumping duty case brought by importer Repwire and exporter Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit after its counsel, Eric Singley, left DOJ. The government said in a Jan. 26 notice that it will slot DOJ attorney Kelly Geddes into the lead counsel role. Jin Tiong and Repwire filed the appeal to contest the government's finding that Jin Tiong wasn't eligible for a separate AD rate in the 2019-20 AD review of aluminum wire and cable from China because it didn't submit a separate rate application, even though a separate rate questionnaire was accidentally sent to it (Repwire v. U.S. , Fed. Cir. # 23-1933).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 26 gave the U.S. another 14 days to file its response to a group of solar panel exporters' bid for rehearing of the appellate court's ruling that President Donald Trump properly revoked a tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels. The government has until Feb. 16 to submit its brief, which was invited by the court following the rehearing motion (see 2401220027) (Solar Energy Industries Association v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1392).

The Rebar Trade Action Coalition, a domestic petitioner and defendant-intervenor in a case recently decided in the Court of International Trade, announced Jan. 26 it will be filing an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. It is seeking to overturn CIT’s holding that Turkish shipbuilding company and scrap metal supplier Nur Gemicilik ve Ticaret isn't a cross-owned input supplier of Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret, a rebar producer and countervailing duty respondent in the Commerce Department’s 2018 investigation of its products (see 2311270059). The decision meant that Commerce didn't have to attribute Nur’s government subsidies to Kaptan, which ultimately received a de minimis duty in the review (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT # 21-00565).

A wood board importer filed for summary judgment Jan. 26 challenging an August 2023 scope ruling that found the company’s edge-glued boards intended for making cabinets were subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wood mouldings and millwork products from China (Hardware Resources v. U.S., CIT # 23-00150).

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