Importer New York Mutual Trading dismissed its customs case at the Court of International Trade on Sept. 16. The company brought the suit in 2022 to contest CBP's denial of its protest claiming its frozen shrimp from Vietnam of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 1605.21.1030 had wrongly been assigned the "all others" antidumping duty rate. Counsel for the importer didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (New York Mutual Trading v. U.S., CIT # 22-00293).

The U.S. on Sept. 13 defended the Commerce Department's remand determination that the Korean government's full allotment of carbon emissions credits to exporter Hyundai Steel Co. is de jure specific. The government said Hyundai's claims that the Court of International Trade already rejected Commerce's reasoning and that the agency ignored the court's questions in the remand were unconvincing (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00029) (Dongkuk Steel Mill Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00032).

The U.S. and surety company Aegis Security Insurance Co. on Sept. 13 asked the Court of International Trade to use the items produced in discovery in a separate case involving both parties (U.S. v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 22-00327).

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

An Indian exporter of off-road tires did receive the benefit of import duty exemptions from the Indian government, a petitioner argued in the Court of International Trade on Sept. 9 (Titan Tire Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 23-00233).

Countervailing duty petitioner Nucor Corp. argued on Sept. 9 that the Commerce Department erred in reconsidering the alleged benefit conferred by debt-to-equity swap element of exporter KG Dongbu's debt restructuring program. Nucor said Commerce "has the inherent authority to reconsider its prior determinations, whether or not that reconsideration is based on specific types of new evidence on the record," making the decision to countervail the debt-to-equity swaps lawful, despite the agency having come to different conclusions in the past (KG Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00047).

Antidumping duty petitioner Daikin America on Sept. 9 opposed the Commerce Department's remand results finding it wasn't feasible for respondent Gujarat Fluorochemicals to report its movement expenses on a transaction-specific basis. Daikin said the agency wrongfully said Gujarat's grade-based allocation was as specific as it could be and didn't cause "inaccuracies and distortions" (Daikin America v. United States, CIT # 22-00122).

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Sept. 13 dismissed a suit from three U.S.-based honey producers related to the alleged import of "fake" honey. Judge Daniel Calabretta held that the honey producers, led by Henry's Bullfrog Bees, failed to include sufficiently specific factual allegations to support their claims that the defendants -- honey importers and distributors -- engaged in fraud (Henry's Bullfrog Bees v. Sunland Trading, E.D. Cal. # 2:21-00582).

Antidumping duty petitioner Wind Tower Trade Coalition argued on Sept. 11 that the Commerce Department unlawfully interpreted statutory language on whether exporter Dongkuk S&C's records reasonably reflected the costs associated with the production and sale of subject goods (Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. United States, CIT # 24-00070).

The adverse facts available rate an Indian glycine exporter was assigned for failing to prove it was no longer doing business with two former affiliates was fair and accurate, the U.S. said Sept. 6 in response to a motion for judgment (see 2406040059) (Kumar Industries v. U.S., CIT # 23-00263).