Plaintiffs in an antidumping duty case, led by Catfish Farmers of America (CFA), failed to argue one count of its complaint in its opening brief, so the Court of International Trade should consider the issue abandoned, defendant-intervenor Nam Viet Corp. argued in a Feb. 1 opposition brief (Catfish Farmers of America, et al. v. United States, CIT # 22-00125).

The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 1 order dismissed a customs case filed by California Manufacturing and Engineering Co. for lack of prosecution. The action challenged CBP's denial of its protest claiming that the importer's electric aerial work platforms should be classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8427.10.8010 rather than 8427.90.0000, qualifying for exclusions from the Section 301 tariffs under secondary subheading 9903.88.19. The case previously was placed on the customs case management calendar and not removed before the expiration of the "applicable period of time of removal" (California Manufacturing and Engineering Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00028).

Antidumping duty petitioner Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee will appeal a December 2022 Court of International Trade decision on the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from India. Per the Feb. 1 notice of appeal, the petitioner will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the opinion, the trade court upheld Commerce's remand results dropping the agency's reliance on an Enforce and Protect Act case to reject third-country sales to calculate normal value (see 2212070036) (Z.A. Sea Foods Private Limited v. United States, CIT # 21-00031).

Richmond International Forest Products has asked the Court of International Trade to force CBP to turn over documents in an Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) case to which Richmond was not a party, according to a Jan. 31 brief (Richmond International Forest Products Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00318).

Sunnyvale Seafood has dropped two cases at the Court of International Trade concerning imported fish fillets brought in 2021, according to two separate motions filed Jan. 31. The cases challenged CBP's denial of Sunnyvale's protests over the applicability of Section 301 tariffs to its frozen tilapia fillets imported under subheading 0304.61.0000. Sunnyvale had argued that it should have been excluded from Section 301 tariffs via a product exclusion under subheading 9903.88.43. Sunnyvale did not comment when asked about the dismissals (SSC, Inc. v. United States, CIT # 21-00024, -00555).

The I.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 31 order gave plaintiff-appellants Tau-Ken Temir and Kazakhstan's Ministry of Trade and Integration an extra two weeks to file their opening brief in a countervailing duty case. The appellants now have until Feb. 14 to file the opening brief, while the appellees -- the U.S. and petitioners Globe Specialty Metals and Mississippi Silicon -- have until May 22 to file their responses (Tau-Ken Temir v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).

The Commerce Department properly found that Australian steel maker BlueScope Steel did not reimburse its affiliated U.S. importer, BlueScope Steel Americas, for antidumping duties, the U.S. argued in a Jan. 27 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The government said that claims from AD petitioner U.S. Steel "are based entirely on a misreading of the supply agreement," since the agreement actually sets the price the importer will charge Steelscape, the affiliated final customer, and is silent as to the transfer price between the exporter and importer (U.S. Steel Corp. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2078).

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

The Court of International Trade should deny Enforce and Protect Act petitioner Endura Products' request to stay proceedings in an EAPA case, pending resolution of a scope proceeding at the trade court, plaintiff Columbia Aluminum Products argued in a Jan. 27 reply brief. Since CIT found that Columbia's assembled door thresholds are finished merchandise and thus not subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China (see 2212190051), the present EAPA case "cannot survive," the brief said. This outcome "should result in the granting of Columbia Aluminum’s Rule 56.2 motion and a denial of the motion Endura filed" (Columbia Aluminum Products v. United States, CIT # 19-00185).

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 30 order gave importer Wanxiang America an additional 2,000 words for its upcoming reply brief as it seeks to dismiss a $100 million customs penalty case. Wanxiang America had asked for an extra 3,000 words, arguing that the extra words will give the court "a more complete understanding of Defendant's argument as to (a) why the Government cannot, as a matter of law, establish any Section 1592 violation and (b) the Government’s case against the Defendant amounts to significant Government overreach by Customs" (see 2301270079) (United States v. Wanxiang America, CIT # 22-00205).