Importer Amsted Rail Co. filed a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal in a conflict-of-interest suit at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit against the International Trade Commission for not barring attorney Daniel Pickard and his firm Buchanan Ingersoll from an AD/CVD injury proceeding. The Court of International Trade previously dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, pointing out that the case could potentially be refiled once the injury determination wraps up (see 2211160057) (Amsted Rail Co. v. ITC, Fed. Cir. # 23-1355).

The Court of International Trade announced it will be closed July 3. The closure is in addition to the closure on July 4 in observance of Independence Day.

The Court of International Trade on June 30 granted importer Environment One's bid to dismiss its case seeking Section 301 refunds. The case concerns 31 entries classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8536.50.7000, a duty-free provision subject to Section 301 tariffs. Environment One filed a protest challenging the liquidation, claiming a Section 301 exclusion granted after entry. The company then took to the trade court to claim that the government violated the law by creating a protest requirement for Section 301 refunds despite that statute applying to only certain CBP decisions (see 2210260011) (Environment One v. United States, CIT # 22-00124).

Surety firm American Service Insurance Co. moved to dismiss its customs case at the Court of International Trade. American Service Insurance, serving as a surety for New Image Global, filed the case to contest how CBP weighed its tobacco products and cigar wraps classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2403.91.2000, dutiable at $24.78 per pound. (American Service Insurance Co. v. United States, CIT # 16-00122).

Tomato exporters Bioparques de Occidente and Agricola La Primavera and wholesaler Kaliroy Fresh will appeal a May Court of International Trade opinion that affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's dismissal of one count of its case challenging the Commerce Department's decision to resume an antidumping duty investigation following the termination of a suspension agreement. The claim concerned Commerce's withdrawal from a previous suspension agreement and claimed jurisdiction under Section 1581(i). While the trade court said it had jurisdiction to hear the claim, the appellate court already dismissed the challenge on substantive grounds (see 2305010071). Per the notice of appeal, the companies will take the case back to the Federal Circuit (Bioparques de Occidente, et al. v. United States, CIT # 20-00035).

CBP did not misapply the substantial evidence standard in finding that importers American Pacific Plywood, U.S. Global Forest and InterGlobal Forest evaded the antidumping and countervailing duties on hardwood plywood products from China, the Court of International Trade ruled in a June 22 opinion made public June 30.

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Court of International Trade recently granted DOJ’s motion for more time to file its remand results in a case on CBP's Enforce and Protect Act determination that Fedmet Resources evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on magnesia alumina carbon bricks from China. Fedmet opposed the motion, which sought a 60-day extension of the July 3 due date, because it would perpetuate the "continuing prejudice" suffered by the importer due to the "unjustified imposition of interim measures against Fedmet," which has effectively stopped it from importing MAC bricks since May 2020. The court granted the extension motion in a text-only order, giving the government until Sept. 1 to file the remand results. It said no further extensions would be granted unless a showing of extraordinary circumstances is made (Fedmet Resources v. U.S., CIT # 21-00248).

Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) asked the Court of International Trade to stay a court order for CBP to reliquidate entries of its imported mixtures while the importer pursues an appeal of the relevant CIT decision, issued in May (see 2305260048). CIT had found the importer'ws frozen fruit mixtures classifiable under the basket tariff subheading 0811.90.80 pf the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. as "other" frozen fruits, dutiable at 14.5%, rather than under a duty-free classification under subheading 2106.90.98 as “[f]ood preparations not otherwise specified or included," as advocated by Nature's Touch.

The Court of International Trade should reject a challenge from U.S. steel company Cleveland-Cliffs of the International Trade Commission’s decision not to cumulate imports in sunset reviews, two Brazilian steel exporters said in a June 27 brief at CIT. The steel producers -- Companhia Siderurgica Nacional and Usinas Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais -- said Cleveland Cliffs illegally asked CIT to "seize the Commission’s statutory discretion to decumulate in sunset reviews, establish new law, reweigh the evidence, and make findings that this Court has never made before” (Cleveland-Cliffs v. U.S., CIT # 22-00257).