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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that Meyer Corp.'s reply brief in a case over the use of first sale valuation on goods from China was not in compliance with court rules. According to the Jan. 24 notice of non-compliance, the contact information for Meyer's lawyers didn't match the information on the individuals' entries of appearance on the docket. The attorneys have five business days to correct the mistake, the court said. The reply brief came in Meyer's appeal based on a Court of International Trade ruling that held that first sale treatment may not be applicable to non-market economy exports (see 2201190059). Meyer argued that CIT improperly applied the "dual burden of proof" when it denied the importer first sale valuation on its cookware from China (Meyer Corporation v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1932).

The Commerce Department properly found that importer Vandewater International Inc.'s steel branch outlets are covered by the scope of the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China, Island Industries told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 21 brief. Vandewater's and plaintiff-intervenors Sigma Corporation's and Smith-Cooper International's arguments over any differences between their steel branch outlets and BWPF are "factually inconsequential," the brief said (Vandewater International v. United States, CIT #18-00199).

Antidumping respondent Cheng Shin Rubber Industry Co.'s bid to indefinitely extend a preliminary injunction should be rejected by the Court of International Trade, the Department of Justice said in a Jan. 18 brief. DOJ said that Cheng Shin failed to show that it will suffer immediate irreparable harm for its entries made beyond the original expiration date of the injunction -- June 30, 2022 -- and that if its entries beyond this date are at risk of being liquidated, that the exporter can just request an extension of the injunction (Cheng Shin Rubber Ind. Co. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #21-00398).

Since antidumping duty respondent Hyundai Heavy Industries served as a mandatory respondent in five consecutive ADD reviews, the Commerce Department reasonably found that the company did not act to the best of its ability by not being entirely forthcoming in its reporting of the gross unit prices for its home market sales, ADD review petitioner ABB Enterprise said. Responding to Hyundai's arguments in its case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 24 brief, ABB said that Hyundai's reporting error was the result of "carelessness and inattentiveness" while preparing its data. For this reason, the imposition of total adverse facts available is appropriate, ABB said (Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems v. United States, Fed Cir. #21-2312).

The Comfy, a wearable blanket imported by the Cozy Comfort Company, should be classified as a blanket rather than a pullover, the importer told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 21 complaint. Due to its Sherpa interior lining and function as a blanket, The Comfy should be classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading for a blanket, the complaint said (Cozy Comfort Company v. United States, CIT #21-00404).

The Commerce Department's decision to compare two foreign manufacturers' production processes with integrated steel mills from China was unreasonable, Bruneian company HLDS (B) Steel and Philippine company HLD Clark Steel Pipe Co. told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 24 complaint. Such a comparison -- used in a recent anti-circumvention inquiry -- was unreasonable since integrated steel mills make primary steel in many forms, not just oil country tubular goods -- the merchandise subject to the anti-circumvention inquiry, the complaint said (HLDS (B) Steel SDN BHD v. United States, CIT #21-00638).

The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:

The Court of International Trade, in a confidential opinion, sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a case over the countervailing duty investigation of cold-rolled steel flat products from South Korea. Following litigation at CIT, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the trade court's ruling, ultimately finding that an alleged provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration subsidy program failed to provide a benefit and thus, was not countervailable. On remand again at CIT, Commerce further laid out its rationale, concurrent with the Federal Circuit opinion, for finding that a benefit does not exist. Judge Mark Barnett told litigants in a Jan. 21 letter to review the decision for any potential confidential information in the opinion and to report back by Jan. 28 (POSCO v. United States, CIT Consol. #16-00225).

The Commerce Department did not adhere to the Court of International Trade's orders when it excluded importer Star Pipe Products' 11 ductile iron flanges from the antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings from China, U.S. producer ASC Engineered Solutions said in a Jan. 21 brief. The court did not instruct Commerce to exclude Star Pipe's flanges but rather to "conduct a more comprehensive review," which the agency failed to do. "Rather, the redetermination simply assumes, incorrectly, that a particular result had been directed by the Court," the brief said (Star Pipe Products v. United States, CIT #17-00236).