Importers van Gelder Inc. and Baker Hughes Pressure Control each dropped their customs suit at the Court of International Trade last week. Van Gelder had filed suit to challenge the classification of its vinyl tiles floor covering, seeking an exclusion from Section 301 China tariffs (see 2405060033). Meanwhile, Baker Hughes had launched its case to claim that its steel parts of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7326.90.8588, dutiable at 2.9%, should be classified under subheadings 8481.90.9085 and 8431.43.4000, free of duty (see 2306300068). Counsel for both importers didn't respond to requests for comment (van Gelder Inc. v. United States, CIT # 21-00160) (Baker Hughes Pressure Control v. United States, CIT # 23-00137).

The Court of International Trade on April 19 denied a group of Canadian lumber exporters' bid to have the court explicitly state CBP's obligation to refund countervailing duty cash deposits established by the court in a previous decision. Judge Mark Barnett said the exporters haven't shown that there was any clerical or other mistake in the court's previous order and that "the equities do not favor granting" this requested relief.

The value of sink components and finishing work that either (1) wasn’t covered under the relevant antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders, or, (2) didn’t originate in China, shouldn’t have been included in the sinks’ dutiable value because the orders' language didn't specifically include them, Court of International Trade Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled April 21. However, packaging costs should have been, she said.

In a sur-reply supporting its motion for judgment (see 2410220026), surety company Aegis Security Insurance said it was responding to several new arguments the U.S. raised in a reply defending CBP’s 2016 attempt to collect unpaid duties that had been outstanding since 2002 (see 2503210069) (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance, CIT # 22-00327).

The U.S. moved to transfer the State of California's lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump's authority to issue tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to the Court of International Trade. With the April 17 motion, the government has now moved to transfer all three cases filed in federal district courts to the trade court (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, N.D. Cal. # 3:25-03372).

The Commerce Department's inclusion of Export Packers Company's imported garlic in the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic isn't backed by substantial evidence, the Court of International Trade held on April 18. Judge Jane Restani said that Commerce's focus on two prior scope rulings concerning garlic blanched in boiling water is "misplaced" and that the agency's remaining (k)(2) analysis is "similarly flawed."

Plywood importer Interglobal Forest defended April 10 its attempt to have the Court of International Trade take judicial notice of three items from other proceedings: a stipulated judgment, a motion for entry of confession of judgment and a discovery response (American Pacific Plywood v. United States, CIT Consol. # 20-03914).

Antidumping duty petitioners, led by Brooklyn Bedding, will appeal a February Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's AD investigation on mattresses from Indonesia. In the ruling, the trade court said Commerce properly excluded in-transit mattresses from the calculation of constructed export price for respondent PT. Zinus Global Indonesia (see 2502180056). The trade court also upheld the agency's exclusion of the selling expenses of Zinus Indonesia's parent company Zinus Korea from the normal value calculation (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00277).

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

In support of its motion to dismiss, the U.S. pointed out that importer Houston Shutters had directly conceded in its reply (see 2504010074) that jurisdiction wasn’t unavailable under 28 U.S C. 1581(c) (Houston Shutters v. United States, CIT # 24-00175).