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).

The U.S. denied Sept. 9 that the Commerce Department was misinterpreting the statutory standard for determining the existence of sales made by an exporter at different levels of trade (Compania Valencia de Aluminio Baux, S.L.U. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00259).

Importer Plasticolor Molded Products on Sept. 10 dismissed its customs case on the classification of its automobile seat covers. CBP classified the goods under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8708.99.8180, dutiable at 2.5%, with Section 301 tariffs assessed under subheading 9903.88.03. Plasticolor said the goods fit under subheading 8708.99.8180, dutiable at 2.5%, but were excluded from Section 301 duties under subheading 9903.88.43. Counsel for Plasticolor declined to comment on the reason for the dismissal (Plasticolor Molded Products v. United States, CIT # 20-03822).

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

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 11 granted the government's voluntary remand motion in a case on CBP's finding that importer Zinus evaded the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China. The government asked for the remand in light of the Commerce Department's scope ruling finding that Zinus' imported bedframes aren't covered by the AD order (Zinus v. United States, CIT # 23-00272).

The U.S. on Sept. 10 opposed exporter Koehler's request for the Court of International Trade to certify its order permitting service on the company's U.S. counsel to allow for an immediate appeal of the order. The government said an immediate appeal will fail to "materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation" because the U.S. can still effect service through other means if the court's order is reversed (United States v. Koehler Oberkirch GmbH, CIT # 24-00014).

An Indian exporter of polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip, or PET film, moved for judgment Sept. 6 in another case contesting the Commerce Department's controversially strict enforcement of its filing deadlines (see 2408300050 and 2405290065). The exporter said it missed its deadline because the employee it had placed in charge of filing had gone on medical leave due to “severe illness” (Jindal Poly Films v. U.S., CIT # 24-00053).

Importer Amsted Rail Co. argued at the Court of International Trade that the International Trade Commission failed to reconcile its "contradictory conclusions" on the same evidence in finding that the domestic industry was harmed by imports of freight rail couplers. Filing a motion for judgment on Sept. 6, ARC said that didn't account for a key finding in a previous investigation on the freight rail couplers, which said that the domestic industry's health is "disproportionately" tied to demand for the couplers in the original equipment manufacturer market segment (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00268).

Hoverboards are light electric vehicles, not wheeled toys, the U.S. said in a cross-motion for summary judgment Sep. 4 (3BTech v. U.S., CIT # 21-00026).