The Commerce Department improperly included sales made by exporter Megaa Moda in the calculation of normal value as part of the 2021-2022 review of the antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from India, petitioner Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee said in a Sept. 25 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v. United States, CIT # 23-00202).

A protest approval relied on in a customs complaint from importer Under the Weather wasn't a "prior interpretive ruling" that CBP had to publish and revoke under 19 U.S.C. § 1625(c)'s notice-and-comment procedures before issuing a headquarters ruling on pop-up tents, the U.S. argued. Filing a partial motion to dismiss, the government claimed that only "interpretive determinations with prospective effect" qualify for the statute's "procedural safegurads" (Under the Weather v. United States, CIT # 21-00211).

Importer Shamrock Building Materials laid out a "myriad of unsupported and unpersuasive arguments" against the Court of International Trade's finding that electrical conduit is properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 7306, the U.S. argued in a Sept. 22 reply brief. The government said the heading, which provides for "other tubes, pipes and hollow profiles" of iron or steel, exactly describes the electrical conduit, and that heading 8547, which covers "electric conduit tubing lined with insulating material," does not fit the bill (Shamrock Building Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1648).

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 26 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's countervailing duty investigation into oil country tubular goods from South Korea. Judge Mark Barnett said Commerce properly hit exporter SeAH Steel Corp. with adverse facts available due to its failure to submit information on its use of the Korean Export-Import Bank Performance Guarantee program prior to the investigation period. The judge said that while a "plain-text reading of Commerce's" instructions shows that the exporter was only required to submit information from the 2020 review period, it falls on the respondent "to clarify its understanding of Commerce's directive" instead of relying on its own interpretation.

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Commerce Department legally held that modified engines with a gearbox and vertical power take-off shaft are covered by the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on vertical shaft engines between 99cc and 255cc from China, the U.S. said in a Sept. 19 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Zhejiang Amerisun Technology Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00011).

CBP's Office of Regulations and Rulings wrongly overturned an evasion finding against Dominican company Kingtom Aluminio by CBP's Trade Remedy and Law Enforcement Directorate, the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee (AEFTC) said in its Sept. 20 reply brief at the Court of Intenrational Trade (Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee v. U.S., CIT # 22-00236).

Actuators used in automotive applications that were produced in Mexico from Chinese, Mexican, U.S. and Taiwanese components are correctly Mexican origin and shouldn't have been assessed Section 301 tariffs, importer Suprajit said in a Sept. 22 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Suprajit Controls v. U.S., CIT # 23-00181).

The U.S. filed a customs penalty lawsuit on Sept. 22 at the Court of International Trade against importer Rayson Global and its owner Doris Cheng, seeking a nearly $3.4 million penalty related to evaded antidumping and Section 301 duties on uncovered mattress innersprings from China. The complaint says the imports were transshipped from China through Thailand to avoid the duties (United States v. Rayson Global, CIT # 23-00201).

The Court of International Trade improperly relied on an adverse inference in rejecting importer Meyer Corp.'s claim for first sale treatment related to the valuation of its cookware imports, Meyer told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Sept. 21 reply brief. Meyer claimed that the trade court's inference, which the importer said is the "centerpiece" of the U.S. defense, is based solely on "pure speculation" and shows that the court committed "clear error" (Meyer Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1570).