Correction: The U.S. brought a complaint against a tire distribution company Aug. 20, seeking payment of a $55,882.98 penalty for the importer’s initial failure, in 2019 and 2020, to pay cash deposits for two tire entries (U.S. v. Franco Tire Distribution Inc., CIT # 24-00161) (see 2408210038).

Importer Pitts Enterprises, doing business as Dorsey Intermodal, told the Court of International Trade that the Commerce Department illicitly turned the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on Chinese chassis and subassemblies thereof into orders covering parts of chassis. Filing a motion for judgment on Aug. 21, Dorsey said the entry of Chinese components in "separate, independent shipments" are "straightforwardly" not covered "unassembled subassemblies" (Pitts Enterprises v. United States, CIT # 24-00030).

Importer Seneca Foods Corp. filed a notice of supplemental authority at the Court of International Trade on Aug. 21, claiming that a recent Section 232 exclusion request denial from the Commerce Department is relevant to the resolution of its case (Seneca Foods Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00243).

The U.S. brought a complaint against a tire distribution company Aug. 20, seeking payment of a $55,882.98 penalty for the importer’s initial failure, in 2019 and 2020, to pay cash deposits for two tire entries (United States v. Franco Tire Distribution Inc., CIT # 24-00161).

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

After a four-times-remanded case from 2017 reached a conclusion in the Court of International Trade and went to appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. and a petitioner filed opening briefs Aug. 16 defending the trade court's final decision (AG Der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1498).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 20 deconsolidated two appeals on the countervailing duty investigation on Russian phosphate fertilizers, dismissing one brought by exporters Phosagro PJSC and JSC Apatit for failure to prosecute. Exporter Industrial Group Phosphorite brought the other appeal, claiming that the Commerce Department contradicted the countervailing duty statute in finding that the Russian government's provision of natural gas was de facto specific (see 2408080058) (The Mosaic Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #'s 24-1593, -1595).

Exporter Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. asked the Court of International Trade to compel the Commerce Department not to make adjustments to the plywood surrogate value in the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. The exporter said in an Aug. 20 brief that, after two remands, the court "has been patient with Commerce," but the agency "has now demonstrated that it has no reasonable explanation for its methodology yet sticks to its unsupported position" (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00190).

Importers Wabtec Corp. and Strato filed a scathing motion for judgment on Aug. 19 contesting the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury determination on freight rail couplers from China. The companies contested the commission's decision to rule on the issue at all, seeing as the proceeding was brought just weeks after the commission found that freight rail couplers from China didn't injure the U.S. market (Wabtec Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00157).

No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.