Importers led by Tenaris Bay City sent comments to the Court of International Trade last week opposing the International Trade Commission's separate decisions to cumulate both Russian and South Korean oil country tubular goods with goods from Argentina and Mexico. Tenaris Bay argued that the ITC improperly interpreted the statute in defining the phrase "compete with," which "uses the present tense and thus denotes" that the goods in question must compete with the like product during the "months leading up to and including vote day" (Tenaris Bay City v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00344).

The U.S. and importer Roper Corp. settled a customs spat on the company's microwave ovens, with CBP agreeing to liquidate the goods without Section 301 duties (Roper Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00217).

The United States said Sept. 30 that an Indian aluminum exporter was trying to “artificially separate two similar industries” in its attempt to avoid being assessed a countervailing duty for the provision of coal for less-than-adequate remuneration (Hindalco Industries Limited v. U.S., CIT # 23-00260).

There have been no lawsuits recently filed at the Court of International Trade.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 3 stayed the briefing schedule in a trio of cases brought by exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) while it considers the company's motion to consolidate the three appeals. All three cases center on the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Turkey (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-2242).

The U.S. agreed to liquidate some of importer LE Commodities' steel tube entries without Section 232 duties and refund any duties paid, per the terms of a settlement reached by the parties in the importer's case against its denied requests for Section 232 exclusions (LE Commodities v. United States, CIT # 22-00245).

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 1 said court-led mediation in a suit from LE Commodities challenging 14 denied requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs resulted in a "settlement of all issues." Judge Leo Gordon led the mediation. Counsel for LE Commodities didn't respond to a request for comment on the nature of the settlement (LE Commodities v. United States, CIT # 22-00245).

An importer’s stainless steel sinks from China weren't incorrectly liquidated by CBP despite “express instructions” from Commerce, the U.S. said Oct. 1 in a cross-motion for summary judgment and in partial opposition to the importer’s own Sept. 5 motion for judgment. Rather, it said, the importer was misunderstanding a “straightforward issue” by mixing up components and value added (R.H. Peterson v. U.S., CIT # 20-00099).

A number of plaintiffs in a large case opposing a scope inquiry and finding of circumvention for hardwood plywood raised Sept. 30 the new Loper Bright standard of deference. They said that the whole point of the now-defunct Chevron standard was to delegate authority to agencies in deference to agency expertise for technical issues; the U.S. can’t make the same argument now that that exact argument has been explicitly overturned, they said (Shelter Forest International Acquisition v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00144).

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 1 ordered that an evidentiary hearing be held on Oct. 16 in a suit from importer Retractable Technologies on the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's 100% Section 301 tariff hike on needles and syringes. The importer filed the suit to seek a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction on the duties, claiming the tariffs could send it out of business (see 2409270025) (Retractable Technologies v. United States, CIT # 24-00185).