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

Plaintiffs Garg Tube Export and Garg Tube Limited signed off on the Commerce Department's reversal of its finding that a particular market situation existed in India related to the price of hot-rolled coil in an antidumping duty review (see 2206090067). Submitting comments on Commerce's remand results at the Court of International Trade, Garg said that it "fully supports" the finding that no PMS existed. The result, if sustained, would be a decrease in Garg's margin to zero percent. The case concerns the 2017-18 administrative review of the AD duty order on welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India. In the second court opinion in the case, the trade court ruled that Commerce failed to show how certain market phenomena gave rise to a unique set of facts distorting the cost of materials or other processing such that Garg's cost of production isn't within the normal course of trade (see 2203230018) (Garg Tube Export and Garg Tube Limited v. United States, CIT #20-00026).

The Department of Commerce correctly used its knowledge test to exclude from the final margin calculation sales made to JA Solar, argued the government in a July 8 brief at the Court of International Trade opposing a summary judgment by JA Solar (JA Solar International Limited v. U.S., CIT #21-00514).

Florida-based importer Siboney Corporation violated the law by fraudulently avoiding paying Federal Excise Tax (FET) on 32 entries of large cigars, the U.S. argued in a July 12 complaint at the Court of International Trade. DOJ alleged that Siboney improperly calculated its amount of FET owed on the entries based on the sales price from the Nicaraguan exporter plus a 5% markup to a "fictitious" company, Blue Mountain Cigars, and an affiliated wholesaler, GAMATTSA (United States v. Siboney Corporation, CIT #22-00204).

Plaintiffs in a countervailing duty case, except Taizhou United Imp. & Exp., are appealing a Court of International Trade ruling that the Commerce Department properly found that the Chinese government and CVD respondent Jangho Group failed to respond to the best of their ability over whether certain aluminum extrusion suppliers are "authorities." The plaintiffs are taking the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. At CIT, Judge Leo Gordon ruled that Commerce appropriately applied adverse facts available in the 2013 administrative review of the CVD order on aluminum extrusions from China (see 2205100076). The plaintiffs challenged Commerce's position that the provision of glass and aluminum extrusions for less than adequate remuneration was specific on an industry basis. Gordon said the plaintiffs pointed out a wide variety of uses for glass but didn't engage with Commerce's analysis of the record finding the recipients of government authority-provided glass are limited in number to at least two and possibly four industries (Taizhou United Imp. & Exp. Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #16-00009).

Byungmin Chae, an individual who took the customs broker license exam, is appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit a Court of International Trade decision dismissing his appeal of five questions on the exam, according to the July 12 notice of appeal. At the trade court, Judge Timothy Reif said that CBP was right to dismiss Chae's appeal of four of the questions but that the agency wrongly denied the test taker's appeal for the fifth question (see 2206060055). The reversal of the remaining question was not enough for a passing grade, though, since Chae was two questions shy of the 75% threshold needed to pass the test before taking his case to court (Byungmin Chae v. Secretary of the Treasury, CIT #20-00316).

Cyber Power Systems has asked the Court of International Trade to bar two witnesses from testifying as well as to introduce testimony in writing from a separate person, according to three separate briefs, filed July 11 (Cyber Power Systems Inc. v. U.S., CIT #20-00124)

The U.S., in defending its affirmative evasion finding in an Enforce and Protect Act case against Leco Supply, unlawfully seeks to rely on adverse inferences that CBP did not make while also conflating CBP's error in failing to follow its own regulations over the redaction of non-business confidential information with the due process violations that stem from its failure to follow those regulations, Leco argued. Submitting a reply brief at the Court of International Trade, Leco continues to pursue its constitutional claims against CBP's evasion proceeding while tackling the agency's evidentiary basis for the evasion finding and its use of adverse inferences (Leco Supply v. U.S., CIT #21-00136).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The Court of International Trade in a July 12 opinion denied a motion from Kevin Ho, owner and director of importer Atria, to dismiss a penalty action for lack of personal jurisdiction. Judge Timothy Reif said that the U.S. properly identified the "who, what, when, where, and how" of Ho's alleged fraud over the alleged illegal importation of HID headlight conversion kits, so personal jurisdiction was established. However, Reif denied in part and granted in part Ho's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, holding that the U.S. made insufficient factual allegations on Ho's knowledge and intent to violate customs law based on fraud, but giving the U.S. the opportunity to amend its complaint.