The Court of International Trade on Oct. 10 denied German paper exporter Koehler Oberkirch GmbH's bid to immediately appeal a prior decision from the court allowing service to be effected on the company's U.S. counsel. Judge Gary Katzmann said that an interlocutory appeal wouldn't "materially advance" and would actually delay the "ultimate termination of the litigation."

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 8 sustained the Commerce Department's scope ruling including importer Printing Textiles' "Canvas Banner Matisse" imports within the scope of the antidumping duty order on artist canvas from China. Judge Timothy Stanceu said Commerce's interpretation of one sentence of the order's scope that is ambiguous "was not per se unreasonable."

Importer UniChem on Oct. 8 opposed the government's bid for leave to add correspondence between CBP and the DEA to the record of a case on seized weight loss dietary supplements, after the U.S. was confronted about its previous failure to add such communications to the record during oral argument at the Court of International Trade. The government is also seeking to respond to UniChem's claims regarding whether the court has jurisdiction now that CBP has allegedly seized the goods (UniChem Enterprises v. United States, CIT # 24-00033).

The Customs and International Trade Bar Association filed an amicus curiae brief opposing the Court of International Trade’s refusal to redact an December 2023 opinion sustaining an affirmative injury finding regarding mattress imports (see 2312200070) (CVB v. United States, CIT # 21-00288) (CVB, Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1504).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 7 denied importer Interglobal Forest's application for attorney's fees in its suit challenging CBP's affirmative finding of evasion of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China. Judge Mark Barnett said that Interglobal wasn't a "prevailing party" in the action because the evasion determination was reversed without admitting to an agency error and only after the Commerce Department reversed its scope finding after separate legal action at the trade court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 8 said the Court of International Trade improperly rejected the Commerce Department's inclusion of door thresholds imported by Worldwide Door Components and Columbia Aluminum Products in the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. Judges Sharon Prost, Richard Linn and Todd Hughes said Commerce adequately explained on remand that the door thresholds are subassemblies and thus not qualified for the finished merchandise exception.

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 7 sent a customs classification dispute on truck steps to a bench trial after finding that the undisputed facts are insufficient for conducting a principal use analysis on whether the products are "side protective attachments." Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves held that while a Section 301 exclusion for "side protective attachments" is a principal use provision, and not a provision for an individual product, the court can't at this time properly assess the imports at issue under a principal use framework.

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 4 sent back the Commerce Department's decision in the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Mexico to include exporter Tecnicas de Fluidos' (TEFLU's) "further processed" products.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 4 agreed to hear a lawsuit brought by the Mexican government against a group of gun manufacturers and one gun distributor for their role in aiding the trafficking of guns into Mexico. The lawsuit accuses the gun makers of marketing, distributing, selling and designing guns in ways that knowingly arm Mexican drug cartels through corrupt gun dealers and illegal sales practices (Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Sup. Ct. # 23-1141).