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

Plaintiffs in a countervailing duty case will appeal a September Court of International Trade decision which found that the Commerce Department properly found that a particular EU subsidy to Spanish olive growers was de facto specific. According to the notice of appeal, plaintiffs Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa, Agro Sevilla Aceitunas S. Coop. and Angel Camacho Alimentacion will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the decision, the trade court also upheld Commerce's finding that demand for ripe olives -- the subject merchandise in the CVD investigation -- was substantially dependent on the demand for certain raw olive varietals -- the good that received the subsidies (see 2209140052) (Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa v. United States, CIT #18-00195).

Law firm Neville Peterson has replaced Clark Hill as counsel for importer Meyer Corp. in 10 cases at the Court of International Trade, according to a notice of substitution of attorney at the Court of International Trade. Meyer filed the case over the use of first sale treatment in which CIT questioned whether goods from non-market economies could qualify for first sale valuation. This ruling was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which ruled that CBP had no basis to consider a country's non-market economy status when finding whether to grant first sale treatment to a transaction (see 2208110060). This case returned to the trade court, where it serves as a test case for many other proceedings brought by Meyer -- 10 of which Neville Peterson has taken over as counsel for Clark Hill (Meyer Corp. v. United States , CIT #14-00277, 15-00018, 15-00019, 15-00092, 15-00191, 15-00332, 16-00112, 16-00271, 17-00186, 20-03835).

The Court of International Trade in a Nov 10 order dismissed a customs case from Incipio Technologies concerning the classification of its wristlets and media player covers. CBP classified the merchandise under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 4202.22.1500, dutiable at 16%, and 3926.10.0000, dutiable at 5.3%. Incipio says it should have instead been classified under subheadings 4202.32.1000, dutiable at 4.6% + 12.1 cents per kilogram, and 8473.30.5100, free of duty, or 8522.90.7580 dutiable at 2% (Incipio Technologies v. U.S., CIT #17-00188).

The Court of International Trade does not have jurisdiction under 19 U.S.C. Section 1581(i) -- the court's "residual" jurisdiction -- to hear a case over whether former counsel for Amsted Rail Co. should be barred from certain antidumping and countervailing proceedings, the U.S. told the court. Concurrently filing an opposition to ARC's motion for a preliminary injunction, which would bar ARC's former counsel, Daniel Pickard and law firm Buchanan Ingersoll, from participating in the proceedings, and a motion to dismiss, the U.S. said that the court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case and that the plaintiffs are not likely to succeed in the matter (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00316).

Plaintiffs in a conflict-of-interest suit at the Court of International Trade invoked three court decisions -- two from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and one from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit -- in a Nov. 9 notice of supplemental authority. The plaintiffs, led by Amsted Rail Co., said the cases were discussed during the hearing on the issue held at the trade court (Amsted Rail v. ITC , CIT #22-00307).

The Court of International Trade properly classified knit gloves under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 6116, the U.S. argued in a Nov. 7 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The heading provides for "[g]loves, mittens and mitts, knitted or crocheted" and is "sufficiently broad" to include knit gloves. The plaintiff-appellant, Magid Glove, puts forth a host of "inconsistent and unpersuasive arguments" to vie for classification under HTS heading 3926, which provides for "[o]ther articles of plastics," the brief said (Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1793).

Antidumping petitioner Ellwood City Co. failed to preserve its objection to the Commerce Department's use of a questionnaire in light of on-site verification by not exhausting administrative remedies, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Nov. 8 opinion. Judge Stephen Vaden said Ellwood City had many chances to object to the verification methodology in the AD investigation, but it never did. However, the case was remanded to Commerce over defendant-intervenor and AD respondent BGH Edelstahl Siegen's challenge to Commerce's use of a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test.

The Commerce Department erred by selecting Romania as the surrogate country for China in an antidumping duty review, plaintiffs Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum, Baotou Alcha Aluminum and Alcha International Holdings argued in a Nov. 7 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Bulgaria is both economically comparable to China and has significant production of the subject merchandise, making the selection of Romania illegal, the plaintiffs said. The complaint also objects to Commerce's selection of financial statements, use of partial adverse facts available over raw material consumption, double remedies adjustment and surrogate distance of North American inland train freight (Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum v. U.S., CIT #22-00292).

A group of Chinese exporters filed two complaints at the Court of International Trade to contest the Commerce Department's final results in the 2020 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on common alloy aluminum sheet from China. The parties object to Commerce's use of adverse facts available over the alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program (EBCP) and the benchmark for the sale of primary aluminum for less than adequate remuneration (Yinbang Clad Material Co. v. U.S., CIT #22-00291) (Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum Co. v. U.S., CIT #22-00290).