The U.S. argued that a customs suit is ready for a decision on whether the Cozy -- a textile marketed as a "wearable blanket" -- is a pullover or a blanket. Filing a brief in support of its motion for summary judgment, the government said importer Cozy Comfort's issues are not with the facts but with the U.S. interpretation of the terms "pullover" and "similar articles" under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 6110 (Cozy Comfort Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00173).

The U.S. asked the Court of International Trade on Jan. 9 to bar a wristwatch importer from using any materials the importer provided the government in its supplement to a document production request, saying it had been untimely (Ildico Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 18-00136).

A frozen fruit importer appealed Jan. 11 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit seeking to overturn the Court of International Trade’s May 30 ruling that 14 types of its fruit mixtures should be classified as “other” frozen fruits, not “food preparations not elsewhere specified,” under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2093).

The U.S. and antidumping duty petitioner Wind Tower Trade Coalition defended the Commerce Department's decision to weight average, or "smooth," respondent Marmen's steel plate costs in the AD investigation on utility scale wind towers from Canada (Marmen v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1877).

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

Home Depot on Jan. 10 dropped its lawsuit in the Court of International Trade challenging the president's authority to expand Section 232 national security tariffs beyond procedural deadlines. The U.S. Supreme Court this week denied a petition for writ of certiorari from steel nail maker Oman Fasteners, marking the sixth time the court has declined to address whether President Donald Trump legally expanded Section 232 duties on steel and aluminum derivatives (see 2401080037). Counsel for Home Depot confirmed in an email that its case was abandoned following the Supreme Court's most recent rejection (Home Depot USA v. U.S., CIT # 22-00014).

An Indian stainless steel flanges exporter sought Jan. 8 to have the Court of International Trade reconsider part of its opinion upholding the company’s adverse facts available antidumping duty rate from the 2018-19 administrative review on its products (Kisaan Die Tech Private Ltd. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00512).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 10 issued its mandate in a case on the Commerce Department's use of a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test in antidumping duty cases. In the opinion, the appellate court sustained Commerce's remand results dropping the adjustment for two respondents to the 2018 AD review of circular welded carbon steel pipes from Thailand (see 2312040025). The court said petitioner Wheatland Tube Co. failed to distinguish the case from the holding in Hyundai Steel v. U.S., in which the court first ruled against the PMS adjustment (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1175).

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

The Commerce Department is set to lower the countervailing duty for two Chinese solar cell exporters, removing adverse facts available rates for certain programs and changing several cost calculation methods, it said in remand results filed with the Court of International Trade (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00231).