Gary Barnes, the pro se litigant challenging President Donald Trump's tariffs, responded on Aug. 11 to the government's opposition to his motion for reconsideration of the Court of International Trade's decision to dismiss the case for lack of standing. Barnes argued that his amendment to his original complaint helps establish that he has suffered a direct injury from the tariffs (Barnes v. United States, CIT # 25-00043).

CBP improperly interpreted the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from China when it found that 10 importers evaded the orders, importer LE Commodities argued in an Aug. 13 complaint at the Court of International Trade. During the evasion proceeding, CBP said that the China-origin hollow steel billets used by Thai manufacturer Petroleum Equipment (Thailand) Co. to make the subject OCTG were "unfinished OCTG" subject to the orders (LE Commodities v. United States, CIT # 25-00181).

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

The U.S. agreed to liquidate GoPro's action camera housings under the company's preferred Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings, 8529.90.86 or 8529.90.87, which come free of duty. Settling five customs cases brought by GoPro, the U.S. said it will reliquidate the entries under the two subheadings, which provide for parts "suitable for use solely or principally with the apparatus” of HTS heading 8525, and refund any duties paid. The settlements come after a December 2023 CIT decision finding that GoPro's camera housings are camera parts and not cases of subheading 4202.99.9000, dutiable at 20% (see 2312280038) (GoPro v. United States, CIT #'s 20-00085, -00095; 21-00058; 23-00015; 24-00005).

The Court of International Trade sided with the government in a customs case on food producer BASF Corporation's Betatene, in a confidential Aug. 13 decision. Judge Lisa Wang gave parties until Aug. 29 to review the confidential information in the decision, saying she plans to issue a public version of the decision on or before Sept. 12. The U.S. argued that the Betatene, which is formulated from beta-carotene, is a dietary supplement under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 2106 (see 2501150089). BASF argued that the goods should have been classified under heading 2936 as a "general-use 'provitamin'" (BASF Corporation v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 12-00422).

Chinese metal locker exporter Hangzhou Evernew Machinery & Equipment brought an Aug. 13 complaint to the trade court contesting the adverse facts available rate it received in a countervailing duty review for providing inconsistent financial statements (Hangzhou Evernew Machinery & Equipment Company v. United States, CIT # 25-00151).

Target General Merchandise's string light models are properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9405 as lamps with a "permanently fixed light source" not specified elsewhere in the tariff schedule and not under heading 8543 as parts of electrical machines having individual functions not specified elsewhere in the chapter, the Court of International Trade held on Aug. 13. Judge Lisa Wang ruled that Target's seven models of string lights specifically fall under subheading 9405.30.00 as lighting sets "of a kind used for Christmas trees.”

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 11 upheld the Commerce Department's 2021-22 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China in a confidential decision. Judge Mark Barnett gave the parties until Aug. 18 to review the confidential information in the decision. In the case, exporter Yingli Energy argued that the trade court should strike down the Commerce Department's ordinary presumption that exporters in non-market economies are under foreign government control, urging the court to undertake a Loper Bright analysis of the AD statute (see 2506050001) (Yingli Energy (China) Co. v. U.S, CIT # 24-00131).

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 12 sent back the Commerce Department's 2021 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea in a confidential decision. Judge Claire Kelly gave the parties until Aug. 18 to review the confidential information in the decision. The suit was brought by exporter Hyundai Steel to contest Commerce's specificity finding regarding the provision of subsidized electricity (see 2505270004). Kelly previously remanded the review after finding that the agency didn't provide a "rational basis" for its de facto specificity finding (see 2412170041). Commerce initially said the Korean steel industry was one of four apparently unrelated industries out of 10 that, together, were the four biggest users of the off-peak electricity program. On remand, the agency switched its grouping to only three industries (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S, CIT # 23-00211).

Petitioners led by Insteel Wire Products Company argued Aug. 7 that the Commerce Department doesn’t need to change up its approach for circumvention inquiries on goods that undergo further processing in the United States rather than in a third country (Deacero v. United States, CIT # 24-00212).