CBP, on remand at the Court of International Trade, reversed its finding that importers Norca Industries Co. and International Piping & Procurment Group's imported carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings evaded the antidumping duty order on the pipe fittings from China (Norca Industrial v. United States, CIT # 21-00192).

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 25 denied a U.S. motion to dismiss a customs case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding a protest with CBP was not needed for importer Fraserview Remanufacturing's 80 entries that were deemed liquidated despite a Commerce Department order suspending liquidation. Judge Timothy Reif said that because the statute for deemed liquidation requires the entries to not be suspended, the notices of deemed liquidation did not actually liquidate the entries. As a result, relief at the court was not available under Section 1581(a) but was available under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction.

The U.S. said Jan. 24 at the Court of International Trade that it was seeking more than $193 million in unpaid antidumping duties from German company Koehler Oberkirch, formerly known as Papierfabrik August Koehler (U.S. v. Koehler Oberkirch GmbH, CIT # 24-00014).

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

Importer Hanon Systems Alabama dismissed at the Court of International Trade on Jan. 22 its lawsuit challenging the Commerce Department's finding that it's circumventing the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum foil from China by way of South Korea and Thailand (Hanon Systems Alabama Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00269).

A South Korean aluminum foil importer filed suit at the Court of International Trade against an anti-circumvention inquiry that found multiple importers attempted to avoid antidumping duties on Chinese aluminum foil using intermediaries in South Korea (Hanon Systems Alabama v. U.S., CIT # 23-00269).

The Commerce Department is barred by law from beginning any new antidumping duty investigations less than two years after it completed an AD investigation on the same product, an importer argued Jan. 22 in the Court of International Trade (Wabtec Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 23-00160).

Past evidence of antidumping and countervailing duty evasion doesn't mean an exporter must still be transshipping goods, the U.S. said Jan. 22 in response to an AD/CVD petitioner’s motion for summary judgment in a case challenging the Commerce Department’s determination that wooden cabinet importers were not attempting to evade AD/CVD orders on products from China (American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance v. U.S., CIT # 23-00140).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The U.S. moved to dismiss a complaint from solar cell maker Auxin Solar and solar module designer Concept Clean Energy at the Court of International Trade challenging the Commerce Department's pause of antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from Southeast Asian countries found to be circumventing the AD/CVD orders on these goods from China (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).