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

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

Importer MTD Products filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade June 5 claiming its spark-ignition reciprocating or rotary internal combustion piston engines from China were improperly denied Section 301 exclusions by CBP (MTD Products v. U.S., CIT # 22-00174).

A company that imports air fryers brought a complaint to the Court of International Trade on June 5, arguing that its fryer are not “cooking stoves, ranges or ovens” but rather fall under the relevant “other” category (Sensio Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00152).

The Court of International Trade on May 30 denied the government's out of time motion to extend its time to respond to importer Atlas Power's requests for admissions for all discovery in a customs suit. Judge Stephen Vaden said it denied the motion since relief is available under CIT Rule 36, which "includes a mechanism for a party to request that an admission be withdrawn or amended" (Atlas Power v. U.S., CIT # 23-00084).

Antidumping duty respondent Salzgitter Mannesmann Grobblech told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a reply brief last week that the U.S. and petitioners Nucor Corp. and SSAB Enterprises failed to adequately defend the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against the respondent in the AD investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Germany (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1219).

On remand, the International Trade Commission failed to comply with the court's order and cherry-picked evidence to maintain its previous ruling that fertilizer imports had injured local producers, a Moroccan phosphate fertilizer exporter said May 30 to the Court of International Trade (OCP v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00219).

The Court of International Trade on June 5 amended a decision it issued last week rejecting the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against an exporter doing business as Supermel in the antidumping duty investigation on raw honey from Brazil (see 2405310043) (Apiario Diamante Comercial Exportadora Ltda. v. United States, CIT # 22-00185).

All plaintiffs filed a joint reply to the U.S. May 31 in a case regarding the number of Chinese-origin parts required for an entire wheel to be considered of Chinese origin -- rims, discs, or both -- under an antidumping duty order on steel trailer wheels (Asia Wheel v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00096).

In a Swiss watch classification case ongoing since 2018, the U.S. argued May 30 that the motion for judgment filed by the watches’ importer should be dismissed for lack of proof. Alternatively, it asked its own cross-motion for judgment be granted because the importer’s watches with gold alloy cases don’t fit under its preferred heading, as that heading, which covers watches with cases made of precious metals, specifically excludes gold (Ildico Inc. v. U.S., CIT #s 18-00136, -00076).