The Commerce Department's decision to reverse the adjustment to an antidumping duty review respondent's reported costs, relying instead on the actual costs of prime and non-prime products as reported by the respondent, complies with the standard set in the Dillinger France v. U.S decision, Commerce said. Replying to the antidumping respondent, Maverick Tube Corporation, in a Nov. 3 reply brief, Commerce said that its position did not require further consideration, but in fact a reversal, to comply with orders from the Court of International Trade (Husteel v. U.S., CIT #19-00112).

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

The Commerce Department reverted to its initial decision in an antidumping duty investigation to adjust a Turkish pipe exporter's post-sale price by only one-third of a late delivery penalty in Nov. 2 remand results filed at the Court of International Trade. Submitting the remand following a mandate from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversing a CIT opinion, Commerce also dropped its particular market situation adjustment to the respondent Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret's costs for the sales-below-cost test (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #19-00056).

The Department of Justice will move to voluntarily dismiss a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit challenging a 2020 amendment to an antidumping suspension agreement on sugar from Mexico after the court upheld the Court of International Trade's denials of two related cases (see 2107190038). Letting the appellate court know of the DOJ's intended move in an Oct. 29 joint status report, both the defendant-appellants, led by DOJ, and the plaintiff-appellee CSC Sugar said they believe it would be appropriate for the court to dismiss these consolidated appeals (CSC Sugar LLC v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #20-1275).

Manufacturer and distributor Irwin Industrial Tool filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade seeking to secure a particular customs classification for its locking pliers in line with prior CIT rulings on the issue. The locking pliers have two handles with two opposing metal jaws with metal teeth connected by a joint or pivot that also includes a spring mechanism (Irwin Industrial Tool Company v. U.S., CIT #15-00107).

International conglomerate Honeywell filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade to secure its preferred customs classification of its radial and chordal brake segments imports. After they're imported, the brake segments are manufactured into brake discs for airplanes (Honeywell International Inc. v. U.S., CIT #17-00256).

Importer Incase Design filed two complaints at the Court of International Trade in a bid to secure its preferred classification of its car Apple cellphone chargers. CBP liquidated the chargers under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8504.40.95, which provides for “[e]lectrical transformers, static converters (for example, rectifiers) and inductors; parts thereof: Static converters: Other,” dutiable at 1.5%. Incase argues that the proper HTS home for the car chargers is 8504.40.85, which provides for “[e]lectrical transformers, static converters (for example, rectifiers) and inductors; parts thereof: Static converters: For telecommunication apparatus,” free of duty (Incase Design Corp. v. U.S., CIT #16-00235, #17-00046).

Acer America and its repair and service subsidiary joined the massive Section 301 litigation, alleging in a Nov. 1 complaint at the Court of International Trade that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative ran afoul of the 1974 Trade Act and the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act when it imposed the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports. Acer’s complaint cites tariff exposure to 16 classifications of goods on List 3 and four on List 4A, including for PCs, speakers and projectors. Acer’s law firm is Akin Gump, which crafted the first-filed HMTX Industries-Jasco Products complaint in September 2020 that springboarded the roughly 3,800 nearly identical actions to follow, all seeking to have the tariff rulemakings vacated and the duties refunded with interest. HMTX-Jasco is now the designated sample case, and Akin Gump’s deadline is Nov. 15 for filing papers supporting its Aug. 2 motion for judgment on the agency record. It’s the final entry on the court’s April 13 scheduling order. Oral argument is expected next, possibly as soon as December (Acer America Corporation v. U.S., CIT #21-00575).

The Commerce Department again dropped its particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test in an antidumping review, despite continuing to find that a PMS existed during the review. Dropping the adjustment in Oct. 29 remand results at the Court of International Trade, Commerce said it fulfilled the terms of its voluntary remand request in the case, explaining that the court ruled in other cases that the agency is not allowed to make such an adjustment when finding normal value (NEXTEEL Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #20-03868).

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 29 granted the Commerce Department's request for a voluntary remand in an antidumping duty case, so the agency can review whether it was appropriate to rely on supplemental questionnaire responses, seeing as it couldn't conduct an on-site verification. The court found that Commerce gave enough evidence of "substantial and legitimate" concerns to remand the case and further explore whether the "novel legal approach that Commerce took during the [COVID-19] pandemic" can be properly supported. The court also noted that on-site verification may now be possible given eased travel restrictions (Ellwood City Forge Company, et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00007).