Court of International Trade Judge Claire Kelly on Jan. 2 granted a motion to consolidate two cases challenging the Commerce Department’s refusal to grant several Chinese pea protein exporters separate rates in an antidumping duty investigation (Yantai Oriental Protein Tech Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00181, -00179).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 31 denied Canadian lumber exporter J.D. Irving's bid for a full court rehearing of a three-judge panel's rejection of the company's attempt to challenge the denial of an antidumping duty cash deposit rate under Section 1581(i) (J.D. Irving v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1652).
The U.S. agreed to liquidate importer Tingley Rubber Corp.'s latex rubber boot savers under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6401.99.30, dutiable at 25%, as opposed to subheading 6401.92.90, dutiable at 37.5%, according to a stipulated judgment at the Court of International Trade (Tingley Rubber Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 20-03711).
The parties in a pair of countervailing duty suits asked the Court of International Trade to continue a stay in the cases pending the result of a separate action involving the same parties on whether the Commerce Department can countervail exporter KG Dongbu Steel Co.'s debt-to-equity restructurings. KG Dongbu, the U.S., petitioner Nucor Corp. and the South Korean government asked Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves to continue the stay pending the result of the lead action (KG Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, CIT #s 23-00055, 24-00056).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department erred in finding that respondents Heze Huayi Chemical Co. and Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co. cooperated to the best of their ability despite a failure to produce land-use purchase contracts in the 2021 review of the countervailing duty order on chlorinated isocyanurates from China, petitioners led by Bio-Lab argued (Bio-Lab v. U.S., CIT # 24-00118).
Importer Integlobal Forest failed to convincingly argue that the Enforce and Protect Act isn't a strict liability statute, petitioner Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood argued. The coalition said both the "plain language of the statute and the overall statutory context" show that Congress didn't mean to require culpability of an importer as a "prerequisite" to an affirmative evasion finding (American Pacific Plywood v. United States, CIT Consol. # 20-03914).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Ildico will appeal a Court of International Trade decision finding for the government in a customs classification spat on the company's watches with case backs set with watch glass made of nonprecious materials (see 2411010048). The trade court said Ildico's Richard Mille watches aren't considered to have cases made "wholly" of precious metal and thus fit under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9102, a basket provision covering watches with composite cases. Ildico claimed its watches should have been classified under heading 9101 (Ildico Inc. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 18-00136).
A Vietnamese frozen fish fillet exporter’s single U.S. sale wasn’t bona fide, the domestic trade group Catfish Farmers of America said Dec. 16 in a motion for judgment (Catfish Farmers of America v. U.S., CIT # 24-00126).