The U.S. on March 13 opposed importer Unichem Enterprises' motion to expedite its customs case on CBP's exclusion of its entries of 7-keto dehydroepiandrosterone, saying the company "has failed to establish good cause for expediting this action" (Unichem Enterprises v. U.S., CIT # 24-00033).

The Court of International Trade will ask parties in an oral argument in Section 1581(i) action set for March 20 if antidumping and countervailing duties can ever violate the 8th Amendment as an excessive fine if they are legally calculated. Issuing questions ahead of the argument, Judge Mark Barnett also asked about when exactly importer Greentech Energy Solutions was injured when its solar cell entries were assessed AD/CVD (Greentech Energy Solutions v. United States, CIT # 23-00118).

In a long-delayed motion for summary judgment in a case that began in 2018, a Swiss watch importer argued that CBP had relied on the wrong definitions of "watch crystal” and “watch case” when it misclassified its entries at a higher duty rate (Ildico Inc. v. U.S., CIT #s 18-00136, -00076).

Exporter Hyundai Steel Co. argued against the Commerce Department's finding that the South Korean government's provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration is de facto specific in the 2021 countervailing duty review on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea. Filing a motion for judgment on March 12, Hyundai claimed that the record doesn't show that the steel industry "received a disproportionately large amount of this subsidy" as required by a de facto specificity analysis (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00211).

The Commerce Department on March 12 said that on remand it treated exporter Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co. as a mandatory respondent in the 2020-21 review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan, assigning the company a 5.2% AD rate. The agency asked for the remand so it could grant the exporter mandatory respondent status following a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision that said Commerce must use more than one mandatory respondent where multiple companies request review (see 2208290026) (Optima Steel International v. U.S., CIT # 23-00108).

The Commerce Department on March 12 reluctantly conducted a pass-through analysis to show, by court order, that a remedy wasn't being redundantly applied by both AD and CVD orders on biodiesel from Indonesia due to a government subsidy that lowered the cost of an input (Wilmar Trading PTE Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 18-00121).

The Court of International Trade on March 11 granted importer Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co.'s motion to voluntarily dismiss 12 of its customs suits. The voluntary dismissal bid comes after the importer lost a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case on the classification of its textile gloves with a plastic coating on the palm and fingers (see 2312060028). The appellate court said the gloves are classified as gloves under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 6116, not as articles of plastics under heading 3926 (Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co v. U.S., CIT # 16-00036, -00040, -00044, -00149, -00151, -00152, -00153, -00166, 17-00001, -00003, -00004 and -00098).

In a March 8 brief, antidumping and countervailing duty petitioners argued that their case raises an “important issue of first impression for this Court” because it asks whether CBP’s Office of Rulings and Regulations is allowed to reverse evidence-based evasion determinations made at the conclusion of CBP Trade Remedy Law Enforcement Directorate investigations (American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance v. U.S., CIT # 23-00140).

The government was right to say that a Chinese brick importer’s magnesia alumina graphite bricks were subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on magnesia carbon bricks from China, a petitioner argued in a case regarding the quantity of alumina needed to exempt magnesia alumina graphite bricks from duties (Fedmet Resources v. U.S., CIT # 23-00117).

The language of AD/CVD orders on steel wheels from China doesn't prevent the Commerce Department from conducting a substantial transformation analysis on wheels that only have one Chinese-origin component out of two, the U.S. said in a March 8 brief opposing a plaintiff’s motion for judgment (Asia Wheel v. U.S., CIT # 23-00096).