The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit last week held that tire retailer Texas Truck Parts & Tire was the "beneficial owner" of tires imported by Chinese manufacturers and, as such, is liable for excise taxes on the imports (Texas Truck Parts & Tire v. United States, 5th Cir. # 23-20588).

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

A number of Canadian softwood lumber exporters, on one side of a case, and, on the other, defendant-intervenors led by a domestic trade group, filed in total three briefs supporting their respective motions for judgment (see 2404110063) in a case involving the Commerce Department’s alleged misapplication of the transactions disregarded test to increase the costs of a review’s mandatory respondent (Government of Canada v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00187).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 11 issued its mandate in an appeal of a case on the countervailing duty investigation on Russian phosphate fertilizers brought by exporters Phosagro PJSC and JSC Apatit. The appeal was previously dismissed by CAFC for failure to prosecute (see 2408200028). A separate appeal of the case from exporter Industrial Group Phosphorite continues at the court, with the company claiming that the Commerce Department contradicted the CVD 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. # 24-1595).

A petitioner, a domestic lumber trade group, pushed back against the Commerce Department's ultimate post-remand finding that subsidies received by unaffiliated lumber suppliers were applicable to a few expedited Canadian lumber review respondents, but that those subsidies had no effect on the respondents’ rates. It again alleged that the department had made a “mathematical error” (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. U.S., CIT # 19-00122).

Exporter Can Tho Import Export Seafood Joint Stock Co. dismissed its appeal of the Commerce Department's 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. The company brought the suit to contest Commerce's denial of the exporter's byproduct offsets for "fresh broken meat" and "fresh fish waste by-products" (see 2405140061). Can Tho also claimed that Commerce illegally liquidated some of its entries at the "punitive" Vietnam-wide rate instead of its own rate (Can Tho Import Export Seafood Joint Stock Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00080).

A U.S. steel producer joined the government (see 2409170033) Oct. 9 in defending a Commerce Department finding that the South Korean government’s provision of electricity at lower prices during off-peak hours was de facto specific to an exporter and that South Korea’s cap-and-trade program was countervailable (POSCO v. United States, CIT # 24-00006).

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 9 denied importer Retractable Technologies' motion to quash a prehearing deposition subpoena from the U.S. in the company's suit against the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's 100% Section 301 rate hike on needles and syringes (Retractable Technologies v. U.S., CIT # 24-00185).

The United States and an importer of a wearable blanket, similar to a Snuggie, again traded briefs Oct. 10 regarding admissibility of evidence; this time, they specifically covered the issue of whether a CBP employee could testify at an upcoming bench trial (Cozy Comfort Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00173).

The U.S. on Oct 8, joined by defendant-intervenors Oct. 9, pushed back against an aluminum importer’s claim that the Commerce Department had wrongly looked at only two of five factors in a circumvention investigation to determine a product’s country of origin -- even finding the other three factors actually weighed against its ruling (Hanon Systems Alabama Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00013).