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

CBP was well within its rights to reverse its finding that an importer evaded antidumping duties on frozen warmwater shrimp from India, both the defendant-intervenors, Minh Phu Seafood Joint Stock Co. and MSeafood Corp., and the Department of Justice told the Court of International Trade in a pair of reply briefs. Responding to a motion for judgment from the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade and Enforcement Committee, both briefs also argued that the petitioner group had no right to the business confidential information in the investigation, calling AHSTEC's arguments "borderline irresponsible" (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee v. United States, CIT #21-00129).

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

The Court of International Trade suspended the liquidation of Adisseo Espana's and Adisseo USA's methionine imports in a Dec. 14 statutory injunction order until litigation is completed over an injury determination on the imports. Adisseo launched its challenge in October to contest the International Trade Commission's finding that methionine imports from Spain and Japan injured the domestic methionine industry (see 2111150039). The Spanish company argued that the ITC spurned the commission's own traditional quarterly price comparisons in favor of "less reliable, anecdotal evidence." The statutory injunction motion, though, was filed upon consent of the Justice Department, and would enjoin methionine imports brought in between March 4, 2021, and Aug. 4, 2022 (Adisseo Espana S.A., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00562).

The refunds issued to parties that challenged President Donald Trump's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff hike on Turkish steel are either back in the government's hands or on their way, the litigants told the Court of International Trade in a joint status report (Transpacific Steel LLC, et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00009).

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

The Court of International Trade set a date -- March 22, 2022 -- for in-person oral argument date to discuss importer Crown Cork & Seal's motion to dismiss the first two counts of a customs fraud case brought by the Department of Justice. DOJ launched its case following a 10-year investigation, seeking more than $18 million over misclassified metal vacuum closures, alleging fraud, gross negligence and negligence. CCS moved to dismiss these first two counts, holding that the U.S. only has the facts to support a claim of negligence (The United States v. Crown Cork & Seal, USA, Inc. et al., CIT #21-361).

The Commerce Department cannot redefine price adjustments in less-than-fair-value investigations to "disaggregate" the value actually agreed to by the buyer and the seller, defendant-appellant LDC Argentina told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 7 reply brief. Commerce did just that, though, when it made a price adjustment for renewable identification numbers (RINs) -- credits used for compliance with the EPA's Renewable Fuel Standard Program (Vicentin S.A.I.C., et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1988).

The U.S.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found building materials company Bruskin International's opening and reply briefs to not be in compliance with the court's rules, the appellate court said in a Dec. 10 notice. The paper copies of the briefs were not printed single-sided, contrary to court rules. The court does permit, though, the double-sided printing of appendices. Further, the paper copies of the reply brief had an incorrect yellow cover since the cover of the appellant's reply brief must be gray, the notice said (M S International, Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1679).

Importer 3BTech launched a second, identical classification battle over its electric scooters, known as hoverboards, in a Dec. 10 complaint in which it alleges the hoverboards were assessed duties under the wrong Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading at entry into the U.S. 3BTech argues for a different HTS subheading than the one given to it by CBP, and, failing that, argues for an exclusion from the Section 301 China tariffs granted by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (3BTech, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00026).