The Court of International Trade on March 26 denied importer Eteros Technologies USA an expedited briefing schedule in its case alleging that CBP retaliated against the company's executives after the importer received a favorable ruling at the trade court. Judge Gary Katzmann said Eteros hasn't shown that "good cause" warrants a speedy resolution of the case.

Court of International Trade Judge Gary Katzmann on March 27 denied a motion to dismiss a U.S. claim against German thermal paper exporter Koehler Oberkirch and its affiliate, Koehler Paper, for nearly $200 million in duties unpaid by the now-defunct Papierfabrik August Koehler. He said that the trade court has personal jurisdiction over the case because Koehler Oberkirch is the successor-in-interest of Papierfabrik August Koehler; meanwhile, Koehler Paper, due to the U.S. fraud allegation, is the successor-in-interest of Koehler Oberkirch (United States v. Koehler Oberkirch, CIT # 24-00014).

The U.S. on March 20 asked the Court of International Trade to dismiss exporter Pipe & Piling Supplies’ complaint for lack of jurisdiction, saying the exporter had failed to notify a USMCA panel of its lawsuit (Pipe & Piling Supplies v. United States, CIT # 24-00211).

Petitioner United Steel, Paper, and Forestry said March 24 that the U.S. was wrongly seeking to narrow the scope of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Taiwan (United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union v. United States, CIT # 24-00165).

The Commerce Department "violated its statutory obligations" to gain adequate support to launch an antidumping duty investigation, importers led by Tenaris Bay City argued in their March 24 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Tenaris Bay said Commerce failed to examine "intermingled" oil country tubular goods mill and processor production data and proxy shipment information used "in lieu of missing production data" provided by the petitioners "to confirm its accuracy and adequacy contrary to its statutory obligation" (Tenaris Bay City v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1382).

The Court of International Trade granted three wildlife advocacy groups' voluntary dismissal of a case seeking an import ban on fisheries from nine countries after the groups reached a settlement with the U.S. government. Judge Gary Katzmann dropped the case, though he retained jurisdiction over the matter to oversee implementation of the settlement, at the parties' request.

The U.S. responded March 20 to surety company Aegis Security Insurance’s motion for judgment (see 2501310069). It said that CBP hadn’t intended to wait eight years before seeking outstanding duties in 2016, but provided several arguments as to why the duties still must be paid (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance, CIT # 22-00327).

The Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department's 2017 review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. In a March 24 confidential decision, Judge Timothy Reif gave the parties until March 31 to review the confidential information in the decision. Parties in the case sparred on Commerce's use of only one mandatory respondent in the review (see 2403110048). After a previous remand requested by Commerce to consider a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision requiring the use of more than one respondent where multiple companies request a review, the agency said it could use only one respondent here, given the "case-specific circumstances" (see 2304030049) (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 20-03885).

Exporter Wabtec filed a supplemental brief March 21 claiming that an International Trade Commission investigation was trying to reach lost export sales on behalf of the domestic industry (Wabtec Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00160, -00161).

Wisconsin man Gary Barnes doesn't have constitutional or prudential standing to challenge the president's right to impose tariffs, the U.S. argued in a March 21 motion to dismiss at the Court of International Trade. The government claimed that Barnes failed to "allege a particularized and concrete injury to himself," and instead claimed that "unidentified American consumers more generally" will be harmed by the supposed constitutional violations the president commits when imposing tariffs (Gary Barnes v. United States, CIT # 25-00043).