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

The Commerce Department complied with the Court of International Trade's remand instructions when it found that certain door thresholds qualify for the "finished merchandise" exclusion from the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, the Justice Department said in a pair of Feb. 14 reply briefs. Filing its responses in two separate cases, one brought by Columbia Aluminum Products and the other by Worldwide Door Components, Commerce said that it relied on CIT's rulings to find that the plaintiffs' door thresholds qualified for the finished merchandise exclusion while ignoring prior authorities that established that a subassembly could not qualify for the exclusion (Worldwide Door Components v. United States, CIT #19-00012) (Columbia Aluminum Products v. United States, CIT # 19-00013).

Aida and the Department of Justice are seeking testimony from three Italian employees of Aida who possess specialized knowledge required in an ongoing case at the Court of International Trade concerning the proper value of six industrial stamping presses, they said in a joint request to Judge Stephen Vaden asking him to issue an order appointing a commissioner authorized to take testimony in Italy and to issue a Letter of Request to Aida's and DOJ's local counsels in Italy. In its initial complaint, Aida claimed that CBP liquidated two entries based on incorrect appraisal by Aida's customs broker in 2015. Aida challenged the appraised value of the items via a protest, which was denied in 2018. In order to move forward with the case, both Aida and DOJ agree that testimony regarding the value of the imported presses is required.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should not grant a stay of proceedings in a lawsuit challenging the Commerce Department's particular market situation in an antidumping duty sales-below-cost test because the defendants seeking the stay haven't shown they're likely to succeed in the case, plaintiff-appellees Dong-A Steel Co. and Kukje Steel Co. said in a Feb. 14 brief. A trio of defendant-appellants -- Atlas Tube, Searing Industries and Nucor Tubular Products -- had requested a stay while the Federal Circuit wraps up another case wherein Welspun Tubular requested a full court rehearing over an identical question, but the Federal Circuit is unlikely to grant the rehearing or overturn its earlier decision, Dong-A and Kukje said (Dong-A Steel Company v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2153).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a California district court ruling dismissing a case brought by investors in U.S. semiconductor developer Qualcomm over an alleged scheme by the American company to illegally block Singapore firm Broadcom's bid to take over Qualcomm. Investors had argued Qualcomm had improperly lobbied lawmakers and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. to block the acquisition.

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

A customs broker license test taker filed suit at the Court of International Trade after two appeals of her final score on the Customs Broker License Examination failed to result in a passing grade. Filing the case without an attorney, Shuzhen Zhong wants the court to review the six questions she appealed to CBP, of which she only received credit for one upon reconsideration. Zhong took particular issue with CBP's getting both her address and gender wrong when returning the results of her appeal (Zhong v. United States, CIT #22-00041).

The Commerce Department reasonably derived the separate rate respondents' dumping margin in an antidumping duty investigation by averaging the mandatory respondents' zero percent and adverse facts available rates, petitioner Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood said in a Feb. 3 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Responding to arguments made by the plaintiffs, led by Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co., Celtic Co. and Taraca Pacific, the coalition said that Commerce properly relied on the information laid out in the petition to derive the rates since it was already vetted by Commerce as part of the pre-initiation phase of the investigation (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. #18-00002).

The U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska permitted an amicus brief to be filed in a case brought by two shipping companies contesting hefty Jones Act penalties over their shipments of fish from Alaska to the East Coast of the U.S. The brief from logistics company Lineage Logistics Holdings was permitted despite opposition from the Department of Justice, which argued that the brief does not raise any new issues (Kloosterboer International Forwarding LLC v. United States, D. Alaska #3:21-00198).

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