The Court of International Trade on Oct. 7 set a 14-day deadline for the U.S. to file for a voluntary remand in an Enforce and Protect Act case originally brought by exporter Kingtom Aluminio. The parties in a recent joint status report told the court to lift the stay on the case and that the government intends to file a voluntary remand motion (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00072).

The U.S. and importer Roper Corp. settled a customs spat on the company's microwave ovens, with CBP agreeing to liquidate the goods without Section 301 duties (Roper Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00217).

Two 2021 cases arguing importers' products should have been excluded from Section 301 duties were dismissed by their Houston-based law firm Oct. 1 (Anatolia Tile & Stone, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00245; Bray International v. U.S., CIT # 21-00332).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a text-only Oct. 4 note told counsel in the massive Section 301 litigation to review the court's revised calendar for December 2024 through May 2025 to check for scheduling conflicts. The move indicates that the case won't be heard during the court's November sitting and will be heard during the first full week of December at the earliest. Matt Nicely, counsel for the plaintiffs, confirmed that the case won't be heard in November and is hopeful for a December oral argument, though he said a decision on the hearing date won't be known "for a couple weeks" (HMTX Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).

Importers led by Tenaris Bay City sent comments to the Court of International Trade last week opposing the International Trade Commission's separate decisions to cumulate both Russian and South Korean oil country tubular goods with goods from Argentina and Mexico. Tenaris Bay argued that the ITC improperly interpreted the statute in defining the phrase "compete with," which "uses the present tense and thus denotes" that the goods in question must compete with the like product during the "months leading up to and including vote day" (Tenaris Bay City v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00344).

The United States said Sept. 30 that an Indian aluminum exporter was trying to “artificially separate two similar industries” in its attempt to avoid being assessed a countervailing duty for the provision of coal for less-than-adequate remuneration (Hindalco Industries Limited v. U.S., CIT # 23-00260).

The U.S. agreed to liquidate some of importer LE Commodities' steel tube entries without Section 232 duties and refund any duties paid, per the terms of a settlement reached by the parties in the importer's case against its denied requests for Section 232 exclusions (LE Commodities v. United States, CIT # 22-00245).

There have been no lawsuits recently filed at the Court of International Trade.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 3 stayed the briefing schedule in a trio of cases brought by exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) while it considers the company's motion to consolidate the three appeals. All three cases center on the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Turkey (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-2242).

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 1 said court-led mediation in a suit from LE Commodities challenging 14 denied requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs resulted in a "settlement of all issues." Judge Leo Gordon led the mediation. Counsel for LE Commodities didn't respond to a request for comment on the nature of the settlement (LE Commodities v. United States, CIT # 22-00245).