Importer Northern Tool & Equipment Co. dropped its customs suit at the Court of International Trade, which contested the classification of its agricultural sprayers. CBP liquidated the goods under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 8424.49.0000 and 8424.41.1000, dutiable at 2.4% and free of duty, respectively, and secondary subheading 9903.88.03, which carries a 25% Section 301 duty. The importer claimed that the goods should fall under subheading 9817.00.5000, free of duty. Counsel for Northern Tool didn't immediately respond to request for comment (Northern Tool & Equipment v. United States, CIT # 22-00197).

Colombian shopping bag exporter Ditar and domestic petitioner Coalition for Fair Trade in Shopping Bags each filed a motion for judgment in their respective cases challenging the results of the same antidumping duty investigation. Ditar, a mandatory respondent, argued the Commerce Department had been required to make a level-of-trade adjustment between its U.S. and home markets, while the Coalition alleged Ditar’s records were unreliable (Ditar v. United States, CIT # 24-00130; Coalition for Fair Trade in Shopping Bags v. United States, CIT # 24-00157).

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 25 sustained the Commerce Department's decision to cut the antidumping duty rate for exporter Apiario Diamante Comercial Exportadora, known as Supermel, from 83.72% to 10.52% in the AD investigation on raw honey from Brazil. Judge Timothy Stanceu rejected a host of claims against the move from the petitioners, finding that Commerce adequately surveyed the record and said total adverse facts available wasn't warranted due to the reliability of Supermel's data. The petitioners failed to "perfect" their claims alleging deficiencies in the respondent's submissions, since "they make no attempt to show" how the deficiencies "affected the Department's margin calculation," the court said.

The Commerce Department "effectuated Congress' intent" when it found that U.S. seafood seller Luscious Seafood is not a bona fide wholesaler of the domestic like product, petitioner Catfish Farmers of America said in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The petitioner said that while Congress didn't define the term "wholesaler" in the antidumping laws, the "overall text, structure, and purpose of the law do not reflect any intention to allow parties with merely tangential or fugitive wholesaling activity to force Commerce into action -- particularly for potentially manipulative ends" (Luscious Seafood v. United States, CIT # 24-00069).

The Court of International Trade ordered Jan. 27 the remand of a circumvention inquiry in which an exporter, Hoa Phat Steel Pipe, failed to meet a deadline but still submitted all requested information before the opening of the first business day following that deadline. CIT Judge Timothy Reif found the Commerce Department’s rejection of that information, and subsequent assignment of adverse facts available to the exporter, was an abuse of discretion, specifically noting that Commerce itself had twice extended the deadline for its own determination (Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00248).

An issue with the Court of International Trade's CM/ECF system has been resolved, the court said in a text-only notice to various litigants. The issue caused certain Notices of Electronic Filing, including those with deadlines, to not be received by their intended recipients (see 2501220091). The court said that to ensure all affected parties are aware of docket activity during the time that the CM/ECF system was impaired, the court will send regenerated Notices of Electronic Filing for the affected filings "in the near future." Those with questions were instructed to reach out to the courts CM/ECF Help Desk at 1-866-450-1859 or cmecf_helpdesk@cit.uscourts.gov.

No new lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade.

Vehicle chassis importer -- and domestic producer -- Pitts Enterprises pushed back against the United States’ interpretation of “subassemblies” with respect to countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders on chassis and subassemblies from China (Pitts Enterprises, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00030).

The U.S. and importer Cozy Comfort Co. each filed proposed findings of fact and law earlier this month after a weeklong trial before the Court of International Trade on whether to classify Cozy Comfort's product, The Comfy, as a blanket or a pullover (Cozy Comfort Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00173).

Responding to opposition to its motion for judgment, steel importer CME Acquisitions said “judicial and administrative precedent” still support pulling forward prior calculated antidumping duty rates for non-selected respondents to a review when all selected respondents are hit with adverse facts available (CME Acquisitions v. United States, CIT # 24-00032).