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

The Court of International Trade dismissed Byungmin Chae's second lawsuit challenging his results of the April 2018 customs broker license exam, finding that the suit is precluded by the Nebraska resident's first case challenging the test.

The U.S. and domestic producers of superabsorbent polymers Nov. 12 both supported the Commerce Department's redetermination on remand that switched back to its preliminary determination’s method of model matching in a highly technical case (see 2406170034) (The Ad Hoc Coalition of American SAP Producers v. United States, CIT # 23-00010).

A U.S. mattress importer on Nov. 12 opposed the government’s motion to dismiss its challenge to the International Trade Commission’s critical circumstances determination on mattresses from Burma, saying that its questionnaire response in the ITC’s investigation was enough to give it standing at the Court of International Trade (Pay Less Here v. U.S., CIT # 24-00152).

The Commerce Department erred in finding that the South Korean government's provision of electricity below cost was de facto specific in the 2022 review of the countervailing duty order on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea, exporter Hyundai Steel Co. argued in a Nov. 12 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Hyundai added that Commerce violated the statute on specificity in CVD cases in relying on the "original electricity consumption data" for its de facto specificity finding (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00190).

Mediation at the Court of International Trade resulted in a settlement of all issues in importer Valbruna Slater Stainless' suit on the Commerce Department's denials of its Section 232 steel tariff exclusion requests. Judge Leo Gordon served as mediator and told the court on Nov. 12 that the mediation settled the case (Valbruna Slater Stainless v. United States, CIT # 21-00027).

Importers Wego International Floors, Galleher Corp. and Galleher LLC will appeal a Court of International Trade case on the 2016-17 review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. The trade court sustained the Commerce Department's decision to weight average zero percent and adverse facts available antidumping rates to set the AD mark for the non-individually examined respondents (see 2409180044). CIT previously remanded Commerce's decision to use a simple average of the zero and AFA rates, instructing the agency to use a weighted average of the marks. The result was a 31.63% AD rate for the separate rate companies (Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 19-00144).

In a Nov. 8 cross-motion for summary judgment in a consolidated case that first began in 2015, the U.S. asked the Court of International Trade to rule big box store Target’s merchandise -- LED candles, string lights, table lights, nightlights, path lights and lanterns-- as “lamps” under Harmonized Tariff Schedule Chapter 94 instead of “electrical luminescent lights” under Chapter 85 (Target General Merchandise v. United States, CIT Consol. # 15-00069).

The Commerce Department wrongly determined in a scope ruling that an importer's pencils hadn’t been substantially transformed in the Philippines solely because a Chinese-origin input, wooden slats, were custom-manufactured for use in pencil production, that importer said in a motion for judgment Nov. 8 (School Specialty v. U.S., CIT # 24-00098).

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