Chinese drone maker DJI urged the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to compel the Pentagon to provide its counsel with classified information in the company's suit against its designation as a Chinese military company. DJI argued that the information is "undoubtedly" relevant since DOD used it as the basis for DJI's designation, and that disclosure is needed because the court can't evaluate the designation without access to the "very information on which that designation is based" (SZ DJI Technology Co. v. U.S. Department of Defense, D.D.C. # 24-02970).
Importer Houston Shutters defended its Section 1581(i) case at the Court of International Trade against the Commerce Department's failure to open a changed circumstances review of antidumping and countervailing duty determinations on wood moldings and millwork products from China. Filing a reply brief on March 12, Houston Shutters said jurisdiction doesn't require it to challenge Commerce's investigations, adding that Commerce itself uses the reviews to consider information that wasn't present during the investigation (Houston Shutters v. U.S., CIT # 24-00193).
Four Indonesian citizens filed suit on March 12 in a California federal court alleging that tuna seller Bumble Bee Foods violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act by knowingly benefiting from a venture that engaged in forced labor. The four individuals -- Akhmad, Angga and Muhammad Sahrudin and Muhammad Syafi'i -- said they worked as laborers on longline fishing vessels that Bumble Bee sourced its albacore tuna from and alleged that the company knowingly benefited from their forced labor (Akhmad Sahrudin v. Bumblee Bee Foods, S.D. Cal. # 3:25-00583).
The Commerce Department excluded seven types of bricks imported by Fedmet Resources Corp. from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on magnesia carbon bricks from China on remand at the Court of International Trade. The agency said, under protest, that the seven brick types had an "above-zero quantity of alumina and were based on testing procedures which properly determined the alumina content at the time of importation" (Fedmet Resources Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00117).
The U.S. agreed to apply Section 232 steel tariff exclusions to 13 of importer California Steel Industries' entries. Filing a stipulated judgment at the Court of International Trade on March 11, California Steel and the government said they settled all issues in the case, additionally noting that Section 232 duties applied to one of the importer's entries will be "final and non-protestable" (California Steel Industries v. United States, CIT # 21-00015).
Importer JBF Bahrain and the U.S. are progressing toward a settlement of the importer's customs case on CBP's denial of duty-free treatment under the U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement for the company's polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film imports. Filing a joint status report on March 12 at the Court of International Trade, JBF said it has "resolved technical issues and provided document production to the defendant," while the U.S., through CBP, continues to examine "representative samples of the raw materials, intermediate product, and imported product" (JBF Bahrain v. United States, CIT # 23-00067).
Two Chinese exporters of chlorinated isocyanurates said March 7 that the Commerce Department was right to not hit them with an adverse inference when they couldn’t locate information for a review (Bio-Lab, Inc. v. United States, CIT # 24-00118).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Masterank America dropped its customs case at the Court of International Trade, filing a notice of dismissal on March 10. The importer brought its suit in December 2024 to contest CBP's determination that its paraffin wax of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2712.20.0000, dutiable at 7.5%, has a country of origin of China. Masterank argued that the country of origin should be Taiwan. Counsel for the importer didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (Masterank America v. United States, CIT # 24-00235).
The Court of International Trade on March 10 dismissed a group of exporters' antidumping duty suit for lack of prosecution. Exporters Norma (India), USK Exports Private, Uma Shanker Khandelwal & Co. and Bansidhar Chiranjilal brought the case last month against the Commerce Department's 2022-23 administrative review of the AD order on finished carbon steel flanges from India (see 2502030068). Counsel for the exporters said in an email that the companies decided not to pursue the case (Norma (India) Limited v. United States, CIT # 25-00037).