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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 9 issued mandates in two cases: one from importer Nutricia North America on the classification of its medical food imports (see 2511170047) and the other in a countervailing duty case from exporter Kaptan Demir on the decision not to attribute subsidies provided to Kaptan's input supplier to Kaptan itself (see 2511170018) (Nutricia North America v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1436) (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1431).

The government moved to stay various cases seeking refunds of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act pending the court's resolution of the government's "motion for extended case management procedures" filed in AGS Company Automotive Solutions v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, one of the lead cases on refunds.

Surety company Aegis Security Insurance filed a brief on Jan. 9 providing additional context for its opposition to the government's third motion for an extension of time to file its opening brief in a suit concerning unpaid duties against the surety despite the fact that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted the extension request (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance, Fed. Cir. # 25-2009).

After it didn’t issue its much-anticipated decision on the fate of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act on Jan. 9, the Supreme Court said on its website that it may announce more opinions on Jan. 14.

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

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 8 sustained the Commerce Department's finding on remand that exporter Co May Import-Export Company didn't have a bona fide sale of subject merchandise during the review period of a new shipper review. Judge Jane Restani said the decision complies with the court's remand order.

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

In separate remand comments, Chinese solar cell exporters pushed back against the Commerce Department’s refusal on remand to put aside its valuation of solar glass using Romanian Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7007.19.80 in a 2019-20 antidumping duty review (see 2509290044) (Jinko Solar Import and Export Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00219).

If the Commerce Department recalculates the rate of a review’s mandatory respondent, it also must recalculate the review’s all-others rate, a Mexican light-walled rectangular pipe and tube exporter said in a Jan. 6 motion for judgment (Maquilacero v. United States, CIT # 25-00176).