CBP improperly denied importer Software Brokers of America, doing business as Intcomex, the temporary exclusion from International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs on China for in-transit merchandise, the importer argued in a Dec. 5 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Software Brokers of America d/b/a Intcomex v. United States, CIT # 25-00381).

The U.S. will appeal a recent Court of International Trade decision upholding the Commerce Department's exclusion of seven types of bricks imported by Fedmet Resources Corp. from the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on magnesia carbon bricks from China (see 2510090016). The trade court said the exclusion of the bricks comports with a 2014 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision, which led to the standard that the addition of any amount of alumina to a magnesia carbon brick excludes it from the orders. The case was filed by Fedmet to contest the scope ruling, which came after a referral in an AD/CVD evasion case, on 11 of Fedmet's brick types. After CIT initially remanded the case to address the CAFC ruling, Commerce said seven of Fedmet's brick types are excluded from the order, since they have a non-zero alumina content. The government in appealing the case joins the petitioner, who has already asked the appellate court for expedited consideration of the matter (see 2511260067) (Fedmet Resources v. United States, CIT # 23-00117).

Four related exporters, led by Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret, filed a stipulation of dismissal in an antidumping duty case it filed earlier this year at the Court of International Trade (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States, CIT # 25-00137).

Trade lawyers are split over the necessity of filing lawsuits now to secure potential International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariff refunds should the Supreme Court invalidate them, according to interviews with lawyers.

Court of International Trade Judge M. Miller Baker partly remanded and partly sustained Dec. 5 the Commerce Department’s countervailing duty investigation on wind towers from Malaysia, saying Commerce failed to answer the “basic” question of how it now calculates the denominator in an entered value adjustment decision and didn’t address concerns about the use of land prices from one Malaysian state as a benchmark for another's.

Plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation "have every intention" to appeal their case challenging the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China to the Supreme Court, Matt Nicely, lead counsel for the companies, told the Court of International Trade during a Nov. 4 status conference.

The Court of International Trade's Pay.gov system will undergo maintenance on Dec. 13, 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET, the court said. Documents requiring payment on Pay.gov can't be filed on CM/ECF during this time.

The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

In a Dec. 2 motion for judgment, exporter Kukdo Chemical said the Commerce Department wrongly determined that China’s subsidization of the country’s own chemical industry conferred a transnational countervailable subsidy to it itself, an unrelated Korean producer (Kumho P&B Chemicals v. United States, CIT Consol. # 25-00143).

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 5 partly remanded and partly sustained a Commerce Department countervailing duty investigation of Malaysian wind towers. It sustained the use of a Singaporean Tier III electricity benchmark, but remanded to have Commerce explain how it now calculates entered value adjustments and address exporter CS Wind’s concern about Malaysian land benchmarks.