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

Importer Plasticolor Molded Products on Sept. 10 dismissed its customs case on the classification of its automobile seat covers. CBP classified the goods under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8708.99.8180, dutiable at 2.5%, with Section 301 tariffs assessed under subheading 9903.88.03. Plasticolor said the goods fit under subheading 8708.99.8180, dutiable at 2.5%, but were excluded from Section 301 duties under subheading 9903.88.43. Counsel for Plasticolor declined to comment on the reason for the dismissal (Plasticolor Molded Products v. United States, CIT # 20-03822).

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 9 struck a brief from U.S. Steel after the company attempted to submit supplemental arguments in a case on Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests. Judge M. Miller Baker said that because he rejected the company's bid to join the action, it's not a party to the case and can't file briefs (California Steel Industries v. United States, CIT # 21-00015).

An Indian exporter of polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip, or PET film, moved for judgment Sept. 6 in another case contesting the Commerce Department's controversially strict enforcement of its filing deadlines (see 2408300050 and 2405290065). The exporter said it missed its deadline because the employee it had placed in charge of filing had gone on medical leave due to “severe illness” (Jindal Poly Films v. U.S., CIT # 24-00053).

Importer Amsted Rail Co. argued at the Court of International Trade that the International Trade Commission failed to reconcile its "contradictory conclusions" on the same evidence in finding that the domestic industry was harmed by imports of freight rail couplers. Filing a motion for judgment on Sept. 6, ARC said that didn't account for a key finding in a previous investigation on the freight rail couplers, which said that the domestic industry's health is "disproportionately" tied to demand for the couplers in the original equipment manufacturer market segment (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00268).

Hoverboards are light electric vehicles, not wheeled toys, the U.S. said in a cross-motion for summary judgment Sep. 4 (3BTech v. U.S., CIT # 21-00026).

Anti-forced labor advocacy group International Rights Advocates (IRAdvocates) will appeal a Court of International Trade decision finding it didn't have standing to challenge CBP's inaction in responding to a petition to ban cocoa from Cote d'Ivoire. The trade court said IRAdvocates failed to show that the agency's inaction harmed a "core business or diminished any asset" -- a standard estsablished by the Supreme Court (see 2408080049). Counsel for IRAdvocates said if its claim for standing fails on appeal, it's prepared to refile the case using a party that could hurdle the trade court's understanding of standing, such as a child laborer in West Africa or a U.S. chocolate company that competes with imports made using child labor (see 2408160009) (International Rights Advocates v. Alejandro Mayorkas, CIT # 23-00165).

Exporters CS Wind Malaysia and CS Wind Korea filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Sept. 6 challenging the Commerce Department's 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on utility scale wind towers from Malaysia. The companies, collectively referred to as CS Wind, challenged Commerce's alleged failure to apply a cost adjustment to CS Wind's cost of manufacturing and decision to calculate the constructed value profit and selling expense ratios based on an average of two surrogate Malaysian companies (CS Wind Malaysia v. U.S., CIT # 24-00150).

In a Sept. 4 motion for judgment, an Italian pasta exporter whose countervailing duty rate jumped from under 2% to 88.67% due to the application of adverse facts available again argued that, based on the Eighth Amendment, AFA must still be assessed accurately and not be calculated to destroy a company entirely (see 2402290018) (Pastificio Gentile S.r.l. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00037).

In defense of its motion for summary judgment and opposition to the government’s, an airplane parts importer said Aug. 30 that Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8803, which covers “parts of goods” for aircraft or nonpowered aircraft, is more specific than heading 6307, which represents “other made up articles, including dress patterns” in a fabric section (Honeywell International Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 17-00256).