Importer Marcatus QED filed a complaint on June 13 at the Court of International Trade, claiming that the Commerce Department erred in finding that the company's shipments of preserved garlic in brine fell within the scope of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from China (Marcatus QED v. United States, CIT # 24-00091).

Exporter Hyundai Steel continued to challenge the Commerce Department's finding that the South Korean government's cap-and-trade carbon emissions program was de jure specific, in comments on the agency's remand results filed at the Court of International Trade on June 13 (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00029).

Replying to an aircraft parts importer’s motion for judgment (see 2403110059) in a case that began in 2017, the government said that the importer's products are raw materials, not parts (Honeywell International Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 17-00256).

A Spanish aluminum exporter argued June 11 that the Commerce Department is unlawfully restricting its statutory requirement to consider levels of trade when calculating normal value by requiring there be “substantial differences,” rather than plain “differences,” in those levels to trigger that analysis (Compania Valencia De Aluminio Baux, S.L.U. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00259).

The Court of International Trade in a text-only June 12 order sent a customs case on importer Cozy Comfort's wearable blanket, the "Comfy," to trial after the company claimed that there was a genuine factual dispute at issue in the case. Judge Stephen Vaden ordered a bench trial for the case to be held Oct. 21 following oral argument on June 12 (Cozy Comfort Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00173).

The U.S. asked the Court of International Trade on June 12 to order importer Rayson Global and its owner Doris Cheng to pay over $5.8 million for skirting antidumping and Section 301 duties on uncovered mattress innersprings from China as part of a default judgment against the two defendants (United States v. Rayson Global, CIT # 23-00201).

Antidumping duty petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to reject exporter Oman Fasteners' notice of supplemental authority regarding a Court of International Trade ruling on the Commerce Department's filing deadlines (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).

A steel importer whose Section 232 exclusion denials case has been winding through the Court of International Trade since 2021 said again June 10, in support of its remand comments (see 2404090067), that a competitor and domestic supplier provably hasn’t been able to provide enough steel for the importer’s needs since 2018 (California Steel Industries v. U.S., CIT # 21-00015).

The Court of International Trade on June 12 rejected customs broker Seko Customs Brokerage's motion for an expedited briefing schedule on its motion for an injunction in its suit against CBP's suspension of the company from participation in the Entry Type 86 and Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism programs (Seko Customs Brokerage v. U.S., CIT # 24-00097).

Exporter Oman Fasteners said a recent Court of International Trade decision on the Commerce Department's filing deadlines supports its claim at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that one "inadvertent missed deadline 'without more'" doesn't support the use of adverse facts available in an antidumping duty case. Oman Fasteners filed a notice of supplemental authority on June 10 calling the appellate court's attention to CIT's holding in Cambria Co. v. U.S. (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).