The U.S. and steel importer AM/NS Calvert announced in a joint report April 12 that they are still in the process of seeking settlement in a case regarding the Commerce Department’s denial of the importer’s Section 232 tariff exclusion requests (AM/NS Calvert v. U.S., CIT # 21-00005).
A domestic petitioner said April 11 that it supports the Commerce Department’s result after a second remand that an Indonesian biodiesel exporter’s antidumping and countervailing duties hadn’t overlapped to create a double remedy -- a conclusion the department reached after it reluctantly conducted a court-ordered pass-through analysis (see 2403130049). The exporter also announced earlier that it wouldn't be submitting comments in opposition (Wilmar Trading PTE Ltd. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 18-00121).
Parkdale and the government filed a joint motion April 11 requesting more time to consider whether the company could file its case challenging CBP’s denial of its mixed-use drawback claims before repaying the accelerated drawback it received (see 2205180046). The motion says Parkdale recently sent CBP a letter with the company’s position on “whether the re-payment of accelerated drawback constitutes a liquidated duty under 28 U.S.C. § 2637, and therefore required to be paid to the government before this action was commenced,” as planned in a previous extension motion in December (Parkdale America v. U.S., CIT # 22-00019).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The trade court asked both parties in a case for supplemental briefing addressing whether note 3 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule’s section XVI should be applied to a supermodule that goes into power plants. The U.S. claims that the product should be analyzed under note 2, which it said was mutually exclusive with note 3; the importer, HyAxiom, advocates for interpretation under note 3 (HyAxiom v. U.S., CIT # 21-00057).
A number of Canadian lumber exporters moved for judgment upon the agency record in a softwood lumber case April 5. So did defendant-intervenors led by a domestic petitioner group, which said that the Commerce Department should have subtracted countervailing duty costs from the exporters’ U.S. prices (Government of Canada v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00187).
Importer Cambridge Isotope Laboratories told the Court of International Trade April 9 that following consultations with petitioner Committee for Fair Trade in Ammonium Sulfate, it has filed a new changed circumstances review request with the Commerce Department (Cambridge Isotope Laboratories v. U.S., CIT # 23-00080).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. on April 9 requested that the Court of International Trade not allow plaintiffs to add a new party in a case contesting the final results of the Commerce Department's fourth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel from Italy (ArcelorMittal Tubular Products v. U.S., CIT # 24-00039).
An exporter of vehicle side bars said April 8 that Section 301 tariff exclusions shouldn't necessarily be considered princpal use provisions, but should instead be analyzed as either principal use, eo nomine or actual use provisions on a case-by-case basis because no published guidance singles out a specific method (Keystone Automotive Operations v. U.S., CIT # 21-00215).