Japanese exporter Nippon Steel Corp. failed to exhaust its claim that Section 232 duties weren't included in the prices it charged to its unrelated U.S. buyers in a trio of the exporter's cases against three antidumping reviews of hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan, AD petitioner Nucor Corp. argued. Filing a supplemental brief to the Court of International Trade on Dec. 1, Nucor said that Nippon Steel failed to raise the argument in any of the three reviews and failed to plead the claim "with sufficiency," thereby waiving the argument (Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT # 21-00533, 22-00183, 23-00112).

The Commerce Department shouldn't have granted a de minimis antidumping duty rate to a respondent in the AD investigation on preserved mushrooms from the Netherlands, the domestic petitioner for the investigation argued in a motion for judgment filed at the Court of International Trade Nov. 21 (Giorgio Foods v. U.S., CIT # 23-00133).

Thai trailer wheel exporters and importers sought relief Nov. 20 from a Commerce Department final scope ruling that their products, whose components were made from Chinese-sourced materials, were subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on Chinese trailer wheels (Asia Wheel v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00096).

The Commerce Department relied on incomplete data when it used a Tier 3 benchmark calculation methodology in the 2020-21 review of the countervailing duty order on phosphate fertilizers from Russia, U.S. importer Archer Daniels Midland Co. argued in a Dec. 1 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00239).

The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 4 opinion granted the government's cross-motion for summary judgment on the classification of various nutritional preparations meant for use by patients with medical conditions. Judge Timothy Stanceu sustained CBP's classification of the five imported goods at issue, all medical foods intended for infants and toddlers, under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2106.90.9998, dutiable at 6.4%, instead of importer Nutricia North America's preferred subheading of 3004.50.5040, free of duty. The judge said the five products are "food preparations" fitting under heading 2106 and not "medicaments" as listed under heading 3004.

The Court of International Trade's recent decision that it has subject matter jurisdiction in a challenge to an addition to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List "directly addresses" a jurisdictional issue raised by the trade court in a separate action, importer Southern Cross said in a Dec. 1 notice of supplemental authority. CIT's ruling in Ninestar Corp. v. U.S. shows that the court has jurisdiction to hear the importer's case on the National Marine Fisheries Service's rejection of importer Southern Cross Seafoods' application for preapproval to import Chilean sea bass, the brief said (Southern Cross Seafoods v. United States, CIT # 22-00299).

Importer Click Heat filed a notice of dismissal at the Court of International Trade on Nov. 29 in its customs suit regarding its heat packs. The importer filed the suit to challenge CBP's dismissal of its protest claiming the heat packs should receive first sale valuation. Counsel for Click Heat declined to comment (Click Heat v. United States, CIT # 21-00119).

DOJ in a Nov. 20 brief once again defended its right to use adverse facts available in calculating an Indian quartz surface product exporter's antidumping duty rate after that importer missed a filing deadline by several hours. It also stood by its all-others rate for other Indian quartz exporters against a domestic petitioner's challenge (Cambria Company v. U.S., CIT # 23-00007).

The Commerce Department improperly came to the conclusion that Indian exporter Balkrishna Industries didn't use, or benefit from, India's Advanced Authorization Scheme in the 2021 countervailing duty review on new pneumatic off-the-road tires from India, petitioner Titan Tire Corp. argued in a Nov. 28 complaint. Titan Tire said that Commerce based its finding on a "post hoc, incomplete, and cursory examination" conducted by the Indian government related to the program (Titan Tire Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00233).

Electronics manufacturer Wobbleworks’ 3D-printing pen should be classified as a toy, making it duty free, rather than as machinery for working rubber or plastics, the importer said in a complaint filed Nov. 23 with the Court of International Trade (WobbleWorks (HK) vs. U.S., CIT # 22-00179).