The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 8 lifted a stay in an Enforce and Protect Act case following its decision in the key Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. case. In that decision, the appellate court said CBP violated an EAPA respondent's due process rights by not giving it access to the confidential information in the proceeding (see 2307270038). The present case concerns an EAPA investigation on the alleged transshipment of Chinese xanthan gum via India and was stayed pending the resolution of Royal Brush, given the overlap in the due process claims (see 2310170034). The U.S. is now attempting to distinguish its present situation from Royal Brush, arguing that the Federal Circuit's recent decision is irrelevant since "the facts here are materially different" seeing as liquidation became final in the present spat given that the importer didn't appeal its denied protest at CBP (All One God Faith v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1078).

The Court of International Trade extended the mediation period for a case brought by Evraz challenging the Commerce Department's denial of the importer's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests. In the Dec. 11 text-only order, the trade court gave the parties until June 30, 2024, to resolve litigation led by Judge Leo Gordon. Evraz called for mediation, along with other litigants, to discuss the availability of a remedy for already liquidated entries (Evraz Inc. v. United States, CIT # 20-03869).

The Court of International Trade must dismiss a customs suit from importer Sucden Americas Corp. related to its sugar imports because the company didn't protest the liquidation of its entries or the denials of its post-importation preference claims, the U.S. said Dec. 11. Because of the failure to protest, the government said, the court doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction over the suit under Section 1581(a) (Sucden Americas Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00228).

A South Korean steel export company told the Court of International Trade that government intervention before and during its sale to new owners didn't constitute continuing government subsidies, saying the acquisition was still made at fair market value (KG Dongbu Steel v. U.S., CIT # 23-00055).

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 8 denied the government's motion to dismiss Chinese printer cartridge exporter Ninestar's suit against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List following a court order finding that CIT has the jurisdiction to hear challenges to inclusion on the UFLPA Entity List. Judge Gary Katzmann said the motion was moot, denying it without prejudice to a renewed motion to dismiss after Ninestar's filing of its amended complaint (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

A Chinese automobile accessories exporter sought summary judgment at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 7 in its case contesting CBP's imposition of 25% Section 301 tariffs on its products (Keystone Automotive Operations v. U.S., CIT # 21-00215).

Antidumping duty petitioner Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood will appeal an October Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's fifth remand results in the AD investigation on hardwood plywood products from China. The court upheld Commerce'se separate rate calculation along with its decisions to exclude Jiangyang Wood and Dehua TB from the AD order, and to include Sanfortune Wood and Longyuan Wood within the order (see 2310100045). As stated in the notice of appeal, the coalition will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 18-00002).

Importer R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. voluntarily dismissed its customs classification suit at the Court of International Trade Dec. 7. The company contested CBP's denial of its protest claiming its mixtures for use in personal electronic vaporizing devices of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 3824.99.9280, dutiable at 5%, should be classified under subheading 8543.90.8850, free of duty. Counsel for R.J. Reynolds didn't respond to our request for comment (R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00621).

A Chinese brick exporter alleged Dec. 4 at the Court of International Trade that the Commerce Department is illegally expanding the scope of its antidumping and countervailing duty orders on Chinese-imported magnesia carbon bricks (Fedmet Resources v. U.S., CIT # 23-00117).

The Commerce Department's finding that calcium glycinate is outside the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on glycine from India, Japan, Thailand and China was not backed by substantial evidence, AD/CVD petitioner GEO Specialty Chemicals argued in a Dec. 7 complaint at the Court of International Trade (GEO Specialty Chemicals v. United States, CIT # 23-00238).