Pistol maker Glock partially opposed a U.S. attempt to amend a scheduling order in a contentious case (see 2408130064) regarding CBP’s failure to deduct royalties from its valuation of a single entry of imported pistol kits. The importer said it agreed to a 60-day extension, but complained that the government “has repeatedly sought and obtained extensions of time to respond to all matters involving deadlines set by this Court’s rules, beginning with the time to file its Answer” (Glock v. U.S., CIT # 23-00046).

Importer Solid State Logic voluntarily dismissed its customs suit on its audio production consoles, filing a notice of dismissal on Sept. 5 at the Court of International Trade. The company brought the suit to claim that the entered value of its consoles was overstated. Counsel for Solid State didn't respond to request for comment as to why the case was dismissed (Solid State Logic v. United States, CIT # 22-00310).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 5 issued its mandate in a trio of cases on whether the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 requires payouts of interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest, to affected domestic producers. In July, the court said the Act doesn't require the payment of delinquency interest but only requires payments of interest that's "earned" on antidumping and countervailing duties and "assessed under" the associated AD or CVD order (see 2407150031). The mandate awarded $44.16 in costs to the U.S. (Adee Honey Farms, et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2105) (Hilex Poly Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2106) (American Drew v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2114).

The United Steelworkers labor union brought a case to the Court of International Trade on Sep. 4 arguing that a Commerce Department scope ruling, which excluded a certain type of temporary tire from antidumping duties on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Taiwan, had misunderstood the language of the AD order it had drawn from (United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC v. U.S., CIT # 24-00165).

A domestic glycine producer said Sept. 3 that it hadn’t needed to exhaust its administrative remedies prior to coming to court because it had never had the chance to seek a remedy in the first place (Deer Park Glycine, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 23-00238).

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

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 3 dismissed a customs case from importer Dover Street Market NY for lack of prosecution. The court said that because the case wasn't removed from the customs case management calendar at the "expiration of the applicable period of time of removal," the case is dismissed for failure to prosecute. The importer brought the suit in August 2021 to challenge CBP's denial of its duty drawback claims (Dover Street Market NY LLC v. U.S., CIT # 21-00420).

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 4 dismissed a case from importer InterGlobal Forest challenging CBP's premature liquidation of hardwood plywood entries subject to an Enforce and Protect Act investigation after the company failed to state a reason to continue the case. In a previous order, Judge Mark Barnett noted that after litigation led to a negative evasion finding, CBP reliquidated InterGlobal's entries and canceled the bills for the payment of duties (InterGlobal Forest v. United States, CIT # 20-00155).

The International Trade Commission and an exporter of aluminum extruders Aug. 29 each opposed a petitioner’s motion for judgment that claimed the ITC had altered usually reliable data to reach a negligibility finding regarding extrusions from the Dominican Republic. The alteration was both established by law and necessary, they said (U.S. Aluminum Extruders Coalition v. United States, CIT # 23-00270).

An importer of stainless steel sinks from China filed its motion for judgment in a case it brought in 2020 challenging CBP’s assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties on the entire declared value of its products despite “express instructions” to do otherwise (R.H. Peterson v. U.S., CIT # 20-00099).