CBP improperly classified importer Air Distribution USA's shisha molasses, also known as "hookah tobacco," as a type of "smoking tobacco" and erroneously subjected the shisha molasses to federal excise taxes on "pipe tobacco," Air Distribution argued in a complaint last month at the Court of International Trade (Air Distribution USA v. United States, CIT # 25-00063).

The Commerce Department stuck by its selection of comparable merchandise for chlorinated isocyanurates (chlorinated isos) in its Aug. 4 remand results at the Court of International Trade. However, the agency swapped the surrogate labor data it used in the 2021-22 administrative review of the AD order on Chinese chlorinated isos, which led to small downward adjustments in the AD rates for the two mandatory respondents (Bio-Lab, Inc. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00024).

The Commerce Department on Aug. 4 switched from a "tier two" to a "tier three" benchmark in calculating the benefit received by countervailing duty respondent JSC Apatit for the provision of natural gas for less than adequate remuneration. Responding to the Court of International Trade's remand order in a case on the 2020-21 administrative review of the CVD order on phosphate fertilizer from Russia, Commerce adjusted Apatit's CVD rate from 28.50% to 49.64% (Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00239).

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

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 1 dismissed two cases from importer ArcelorMittal Long Products Canada for lack of prosecution. The cases were placed on the customs case management calendar but weren't removed at the "expiration of the applicable period of time of removal." The lawsuits concerned CBP's denial of its protest claiming its steel products should be excluded from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs. Counsel for the importer didn't immediately respond to requests for comment (ArcelorMittal Long Products Canada v. United States, #s 21-00342, -00343).

The U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York on July 30 permanently enjoined the U.S. from enforcing its International Criminal Court-related sanctions against two law professors. Judge Jesse Furman held that the sanctions impermissibly violate the professors' First Amendment free speech rights and that the law professors, Gabor Rona at the Cardozo School of Law and Lisa Davis at CUNY School of Law, likely will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction (Gabor Rona v. Trump, S.D.N.Y. # 25-03114).

A total of 12 amicus briefs were filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last week in conjunction with arguments from two importers challenging the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).

The Commerce Department was wrong to hit importer AM Stone with adverse facts available during antidumping duty and countervailing duty reviews on Chinese-origin quartz surface products for its exporter’s failure to provide information, AM Stone said in a July 27 brief. Despite Commerce's claim otherwise, substantial evidence shows the quartz countertops were manufactured in Malaysia, not China, AM Stone said, arguing that it shouldn’t have been assigned the China-wide 326.15% AD rate and 45.32% CVD rate (AM Stone & Cabinets v. U.S., CIT # 24-00241).

The Commerce Department slashed antidumping duty respondent Saha Thai Steel Pipe's antidumping duty rate to zero percent on remand in a case on the administrative review of the AD order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand for the 2018-19 review period. The case was remanded after the Court of International Trade said Commerce failed to notify Saha Thai of supposed deficiencies in its submissions (see 2212020060) (PT. Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00049).

Importers Wego and Galleher didn't waive or forfeit their arguments against the Commerce Department's separate antidumping duty rate calculated in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China for the 2016-17 review period, the importers argued in a July 31 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Galleher Corp. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 25-1196).