The U.S. defended the methodology it used to calculate the amount of supplier subsides attributable to exporters Les Produits Forestiers D&G and its cross-owned affiliates, led by Les Produits Forestiers Portbec, on remand in a case on the expedited countervailing duty review of Canadian softwood lumber. Filing remand comments on Nov. 15, the government said two alternative methodologies floated by the petitioner, the Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations, both fall short (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 19-00122).

The Court of International Trade in a confidential decision Nov. 22 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in the 2017-18 review of the antidumping duty order on aluminum foil from China. In the case, exporter Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials and the U.S. disagreed on selections for world benchmark prices for an input and for land purchases (see 2410280038). The exporter preferred an input price benchmark that was a composite of GlobalTrade Atlas data and Commodities Research Unit data, while Commerce went with Trade Data Monitor data (Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00133).

Importer Printing Textiles, doing business as Berger Textiles, will appeal a Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's scope ruling that includes Printing Textile's "Canvas Banner Matisse" imports within the scope of the antidumping duty order on artist canvas from China (see 2410090022). In its decision, the trade court found the following sentence to be ambiguous: "Priming/coating includes the application of a solution, designed to promote the adherence of artist materials, such as paint or ink, to the fabric." The court said Commerce's interpretation of this sentence wasn't "per se unreasonable," rejecting Printing Textiles' bid for a narrow interpretation of the words "priming/coating" (Printing Textiles, d/b/a Berger Textiles v. U.S., CIT # 23-00192).

The U.S. moved for a default judgment against importer E-Dong U.S.A. in a customs penalty suit at the Court of International Trade after the company failed to respond to the government's complaint. The U.S. brought the suit in March accusing E-Dong of failing to pay federal excise tax on entries of soju bottles from South Korea (see 2403290035). The government said the company entered the soju via "material or false statement" by failing to reference any of the owed excise tax. The summons and complaint were filed on March 28, and on Oct. 12, E-Dong was deemed served (U.S. v. E-Dong, U.S.A., CIT # 24-00066).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit scheduled oral argument for the massive litigation involving thousands of companies against the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 China tariffs. The argument will be held Jan. 8 at 10 a.m. EST in Courtroom 203 (HMTX Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).

A Turkish rebar exporter Nov. 17 sought judgment in two old and two new challenges against the Commerce Department in the Court of International Trade (see 2407010038) (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #24-00096).

The Court of International Trade reassigned a customs penalty action against California-based solar cell importer executive Paul Bakhoum from Judge Richard Eaton to Judge Stephen Vaden. The U.S. brought the suit in October, accusing Bakhoum of neglignece and seeking $776,250.51 in unpaid duties and damages (see 2410080051). Bakhoum worked as the vice president for solar cell importer Ecosolargy and is alleged to have made various errors when entering solar shipments during 2014-15. An attorney for the U.S. didn't respond to a request for comment on the case reassignment (U.S. v. Paul Bakhoum, CIT # 24-00188).

An importer of mastectomy bras filed Nov. 21 its motion for judgment in a 2020 case (see 2107140063) arguing that its bras should have been classified by CBP as parts or accessories for artificial body parts, not as “other brassieres of manmade fiber” (Amoena USA Corp. v. U.S., CIT #20-00100).

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

Importer Coulisse Distribution voluntarily dismissed its customs suit at the Court of International Trade on its DC (direct current) electric motors, filing a notice of dismissal Nov. 14. Coulisse filed the suit seeking an exclusion from Section 301 duties under Harmonized Tariff Schedule secondary subheading 9903.88.67. The motors were classified under subheading 8501.10.4060, dutiable at 4.4%, and secondary subheading 9903.88.01. Counsel for the importer didn't respond to our request for comment (Coulisse Distribution v. U.S., CIT # 23-00245).