The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 26 text-only order granted the government's request for 30 more days to file its reply brief in a customs case from importer Blue Sky The Color of Imagination on the customs classification of calendar planners. The reply is now due Aug. 2 (Blue Sky The Color of Imagination v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1710).

The Commerce Department is attempting to skip the first step of analyzing whether a product is covered under antidumping and countervailing duty orders on “mouldings and millwork products” from China -- determining if the product is actually either a “moulding” or a “millwork product,” an importer said June 24 in support of its motion for judgment (see 2401290043) (Hardware Resources v. U.S., CIT # 23-00150).

Exporter Hindalco Industries told the Court of International Trade last week that the Commerce Department erred in finding that the provision of coal to the company below cost is de facto specific. Filing its motion for judgment, Hindalco added that in the case the court finds the supposed subsidy is specific, Commerce illicitly calculated the subsidy's benefit to the company (Hindalco Industries v. United States, CIT # 23-00260).

Further information placed on the record during a remand shows importers evaded antidumping and countervailing duties on Chinese glycine by transshipping their product through Indonesia, a petitioner claimed June 26 before the Court of International Trade (Newtrend USA v. U.S., CIT # 22-00347).

After four remands in the Court of International Trade (see 2312210054), a German exporter of steel used to transport corrosive materials filed its opening bid with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 21. The company, AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke, claimed the Commerce Department wrongly used one of its products’ selling prices as a substitute for its costs of production, which amounts to “circular reasoning" (AG Der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1498).

The “vague and open-ended” language of a scope order on artist canvas from China makes the order unconstitutional, having caused the “absurd” result of levying antidumping duties on importers without advance notice, an importer told the Court of International Trade on June 24 in defense of its motion for judgment (see 2402270079) (Printing Textiles, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 23-00192).

The Drug Enforcement Administration told CBP that it believes importer UniChem's entry of "7-keto dehydroepiandrosterone is a Schedule III anabolic steroid and its importation violates DEA regulations." As a result, DEA requested that CBP seize the entry on DEA's behalf, the U.S. told the Court of International Trade in a June 25 status report (UniChem Enterprises v. U.S., CIT # 24-00033).

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

An importer on June 20 accused CBP of placing “wholly unrelated” lab tests on the record to support an evasion decision and illegally refusing to consider the scope ruling that importer sought from the Commerce Department. As a result, it said, the CBP’s final determination was unlawful (Vanguard Trading Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00253).

An importer of tubing for perforating guns said June 21 that its refund request was wrongly denied after CBP initially accepted its 2020 request for exclusion from Section 232 tariffs. The denial occurred because CBP claimed that the products’ Harmonized Tariff Schedule classification was wrong, even though the agency had said otherwise on three separate occasions, including at liquidation, it said (G&H Diversified Manufacturing v. U.S., CIT # 22-00130).