The Court of International Trade on Oct. 28 denied importer Retractable Technologies' motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the collection of certain Section 301 tariffs, though the court granted the company's motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining liquidation of its entries during the course of litigation. Judge Claire Kelly issued the confidential decision, giving the parties until Nov. 1 to review any confidential information in the opinion (Retractable Technologies v. U.S., CIT # 24-00185).

An exporter that was hit with a China-wide antidumping rate of 144.5% after it filed a separate rate certification a week late -- mistakenly believing that a deadline extension granted to “numerous parties” also applied to it -- said in an Oct. 25 motion for judgment that the Commerce Department was too “draconian” in enforcing its deadlines (Nanjing Dongsheng Shelf Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00085).

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 28 dismissed exporter Yantai T.Full Biotech Co.'s antidumping case for failure to prosecute. The exporter didn't file a complaint within the period prescribed by the statute. The company filed its suit in September to contest the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on pea protein from China (Yantai T.Full Biotech Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00183).

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

The Commerce Department unlawfully declined to assign exporter Yantai Zhongzhen Trading Co. a separate antidumping rate in the AD investigation on pea protein from China, the company argued in a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Oct. 25. Zhongzhen targeted Commerce's decision to root its finding in the fact that one if its corporate officials is a member of a local People's Congress and another is a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference of Zhaoyuan City (CPPCC) (Yantai Oriental Protein Tech Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00181).

In a science-heavy motion for judgment filed Oct. 24, an importer of enriched isotope compounds said that the Commerce Department had, in a scope ruling, misunderstood the essential chemistry behind its products (Cambridge Isotope Laboratories v. U.S., CIT # 23-00080).

A petitioner and an exporter responded Oct. 17 to the Commerce Department’s results on remand of a review of common alloy aluminum sheet from Turkey (see 2409060031), which saw the department mostly maintain its earlier positions (see 2405080048) (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT # 21-00616).

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

The government's service of German exporter Koehler on its U.S. counsel in a customs penalty suit was "improper and insufficient," leaving the Court of International Trade without personal jurisdiction over the company, Koehler argued in an Oct. 24 motion to dismiss. The company added that even if service was sufficient, the court has no personal jurisdiction over the company anyway, since it's a German firm and the U.S. allegations don't relate to any activity by the company in the U.S. (United States v. Koehler Oberkirch GmbH, CIT # 24-00014).

The U.S. said it has a "better right than" Southwest Airlines does to Customs Passenger Processing Fees paid by individual passengers that cancel their tickets and never receive a refund or fail to use a travel credit. Filing a reply brief at the Court of International Trade on Oct. 24, the government argued that this specific situation "results in an unfair enrichment rather than the return of the customs inspection fee to the customer" (Southwest Airlines Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00141).