<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <feed xml:lang="en-us" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><title>CourtListener.com: All opinions for the United States Court of International Trade</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/" rel="alternate"/><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/feed/court/cit/" rel="self"/><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/</id><updated>2024-11-13T00:00:00-08:00</updated><author><name>Free Law Project</name><email>feeds@courtlistener.com</email></author><rights>Created for the public domain by Free Law Project</rights><entry><title>Byungmin Chae v. United States</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10273182/byungmin-chae-v-united-states/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-11-13T00:00:00-08:00</published><author><name>United States Court of International Trade</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10273182/byungmin-chae-v-united-states/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;p&gt;Slip Op. 24-126 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE BYUNGMIN CHAE, Plaintiff, Before: Timothy M. Reif, Judge v. Court No. 24-00086 UNITED STATES, Defendant. OPINION [Granting defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in challenge to customs broker’s license denial.] Dated: November 13, 2024 Byungmin Chae, plaintiff, of Omaha, Nebraska, proceeding pro se. Marcella Powell, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of New York, N.Y., argued for defendant United States. With her on the brief were Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy, Director, Aimee Lee, Assistant Director and Justin R. Miller, Attorney-in-Charge, International Trade Field Office. Of counsel on the brief was Yelena Slepak, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, International Trade Litigation, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Reif, Judge: Before the court is the motion to dismiss of defendant United States (“defendant”). Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss (“Def. Br.”), ECF No. 7. Plaintiff Byungmin Chae (“plaintiff”) filed his second action with this Court to challenge the denial by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) of credit for plaintiff’s answer to Question No. 27 on the April 2018 Customs Broker License Exam (CBLE). Pl.’s Complaint (“Compl.”) at 1, ECF No. 2. To obtain a license, section 641(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1641(b)(2), requires that applicants take the CBLE Court No. 24-00086 Page 2 to demonstrate their knowledge of U.S. customs laws and regulations.1 A passing score of 75 percent or more is one prerequisite to becoming a licensed broker.2 19 U.S.C. § 1641(f) (granting authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to “establish rules and regulations governing” licensing of customs brokers); 19 C.F.R. § 111.11(a)(4) (requiring a score of 75 percent or higher to pass the CBLE). A 75 percent score entails that applicants must answer 60 or more questions correctly out of 80. Broker license applicants who are dissatisfied with their exam scores may file an appeal first to the Broker Management Branch (“BMB”) of Customs and then to Customs’ Executive Assistant Commissioner (“Commissioner”). 19 C.F.R. § 111.13(f). Applicants may further file for judicial review by the U.S. Court of International Trade (the “Court” or “USCIT”) within 60 days of the final agency decision. 19 U.S.C. § 1641(e)(1) (outlining the procedure for appealing decisions by the Secretary of the Treasury on license and permit denials or revocations); 28 U.S.C. § 2636(g) (setting time limits for contesting the Secretary’s decisions). On the April 2018 CBLE, plaintiff received a score of 65 percent and subsequently filed an appeal with the BMB. Chae v. Sec’y of the Treasury, 45 CIT , , 518 F. Supp. 3d 1383, 1390 (2021); 19 C.F.R. § 111.13(f). The BMB reviewed plaintiff’s appeal and awarded plaintiff credit for two out of the thirteen questions reviewed, which raised plaintiff’s score to 67.5 percent. Chae, 45 CIT at , 518 F. 1 Further citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, are to the relevant portions of Title 19 of …&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt; &lt;a href="/opinion/10273182/byungmin-chae-v-united-states/"&gt;Original document&lt;/a&gt; </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2024/11/13/byungmin_chae_v._united_states.pdf" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="application/pdf"/><category term="Precedential"/></entry><entry><title>Ildico Inc. v. United States</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10182455/ildico-inc-v-united-states/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-11-01T00:00:00-07:00</published><author><name>United States Court of International Trade</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10182455/ildico-inc-v-united-states/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;p&gt;Slip Op. 24-123 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE ILDICO INC., Plaintiff, v. Before: Jane A. Restani, Judge UNITED STATES, Consol. Court No. 18-00136 Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER Dated: November 1, 2024 [In a Customs classification matter, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.] Mandy E. Kirschner, Stein Shostak Shostak Pollack &amp;amp; O’Hara, LLP, of Los Angeles, CA, argued for the plaintiff Ildico Inc. Mathias Rabinovitch, International Trade Field Office, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of New York, NY, argued for the defendant. On the brief were Marcella Powell, Senior Trial Counsel, Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy, Director, Justin R. Miller, Attorney-in-Charge, and Aimee Lee, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Fariha B. Kabir, Office of Assistant Chief Counsel, International Trade Litigation, U.S. Customs and Border Protection of New York, NY. Restani, Judge: Before the court are cross-motions for summary judgment. Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 35 (Mar. 12, 2024) (“Pl. MSJ”); Def.’s Mem. in Supp. of Cross-Mot. for Summ. J. and Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 42 (May 30, 2024) (“Def. Cross MSJ”). Plaintiff Ildico Inc. (“Ildico”) challenges the United States Customs and Border Protection’s (“Customs”) classification of certain luxury watches under heading 9102 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). At issue is whether the cases of the watches imported by Ildico are “wholly of” precious metal. Broadly, Ildico argues that because the principal parts Consol. Court No. 18-00136 Page 2 of the case are made of eighteen-karat gold, the watch and its requisite components are properly classified under subheading 9101, HTSUS. Pl. MSJ at 3. The government contends that the HTSUS uses a broad definition of case; thus, because the cases include parts not made of precious metals such as the sapphire crystal backs or screws, heading 9102 is appropriate. 1 Def. Cross MSJ at 5–6. For the reasons laid out below, the court concludes that the watches are watches with cases of material other than precious metal classified in heading 9102, HTSUS. BACKGROUND I. Procedural Background There are no material factual disputes in this case. 2 Pl. MSJ at 1; Def. Cross MSJ at 1. The subject merchandise in question is thirty-five styles of Richard Mille brand wrist watches manufactured in Switzerland and imported by plaintiff Ildico Inc. Def.’s Rule 56.3 Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute, ¶¶ 2, 5, ECF No. 42-2 (May 30, 2024) (“Def.’s SMF”); Pl.’s Rule 56.3 Resp. to Def.’s SMF, ¶¶ 2, 5, ECF No. 46-6 (July 12, 2024); Decl. of Anton Rubianto (“Rubianto Decl.”), ¶¶ 9, 17, ECF No. 35-1 (Mar. 12, 2024). Ildico does business as Richard Mille Americas and is the exclusive importer and distributor of Richard Mille brand watches in North America. Rubianto Decl., ¶ 7. Ildico imported the merchandise in multiple entries made in 2015 and 2016. Summons, ECF No. 1 (June 14, 2018). …&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt; &lt;a href="/opinion/10182455/ildico-inc-v-united-states/"&gt;Original document&lt;/a&gt; </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2024/11/01/ildico_inc._v._united_states.pdf" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="application/pdf"/><category term="Precedential"/></entry><entry><title>Inspired Ventures LLC v. United States</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10162899/inspired-ventures-llc-v-united-states/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-10-30T00:00:00-07:00</published><author><name>United States Court of International Trade</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10162899/inspired-ventures-llc-v-united-states/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;p&gt;Slip Op. 24-121 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE INSPIRED VENTURES, LLC, Plaintiff, Before: Lisa W. Wang, Judge v. Court No. 24-00062 UNITED STATES, Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER [Denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.] Dated: October 30, 2024 Elon A. Pollack, Stein Shostak Shostak Pollack &amp;amp; O’Hara, LLP, of Los Angeles, CA, argued for plaintiff Inspired Ventures LLC. Alexander J. Vanderweide, Senior Trial Counsel, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of New York, NY, argued for the defendant. With him on the brief was Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy, Director, Justin R. Miller, Attorney-in-Charge, International Trade Field Office, and Nico Gurian, Trial Attorney. Of counsel on the brief was Zachary S. Simmons, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, International Trade Litigation, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Wang, Judge: This action is a challenge to the alleged exclusion by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs” or “CBP”) of two entries, Entry Nos. AVV- 0053438-1 (“Entry 1”) and AVV-0053445-6 (“Entry 2”), of certain rubber tires from the People’s Republic of China (“China”) that Plaintiff, Inspired Ventures, LLC (“Inspired”), attempted to import on November 28, 2023. Inspired commenced action before the court on March 12, 2024. The government filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on May 13, 2024, arguing that the court does not have jurisdiction Court No. 24-00062 Page 2 under 19 U.S.C. § 1581(a) because no protestable decision has been made by Customs. For the foregoing reasons, the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied. BACKGROUND Plaintiff, Inspired, is a Wyoming limited liability corporation, and purchaser and importer of the subject merchandise at issue. Compl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 5. On November 28, 2023, Inspired filed entry paperwork for certain rubber tires imports from China, which were assigned entry numbers AVV-0053438-1 and AVV-0053445-6. Id. ¶¶ 11–12. On November 30, 2023, Customs placed both of Inspired’s entries on hold after Customs deemed the entries a high potential risk for tariff evasion because of Inspired’s status as a new importer, the merchandise being subject to antidumping and countervailing duties, and duties assessed pursuant to section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss and Accompanying Mem. in Supp. of Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss (“Def.’s Mot.”) at 4, ECF No. 10. Customs rejected Inspired’s initial entry papers of November 28, 2023, and requested additional documentation regarding the subject merchandise and entry summary information. Def.’s Mot. at 4 n.3. Inspired submitted its revised entry documentation on January 8, 2024, which was accepted by Customs on the same day. Compl. ¶ 12. Inspired presented its entries for physical examination by Customs on December 7, 2023, which is a requirement for entries placed on hold by Customs. Def.’s Mot. at 4; see also Decl. of Customs Import Specialist Nancy Cain (“Cain Decl.”) ¶ 4, ECF No. 10- Court No. 24-00062 Page 3 1. The following day, on December 8, 2023, Inspired’s entries were …&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt; &lt;a href="/opinion/10162899/inspired-ventures-llc-v-united-states/"&gt;Original document&lt;/a&gt; </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2024/10/30/inspired_ventures_llc_v._united_states.pdf" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="application/pdf"/><category term="Precedential"/></entry><entry><title>PAO TMK v. United States</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10161325/pao-tmk-v-united-states/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-10-25T00:00:00-07:00</published><author><name>United States Court of International Trade</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10161325/pao-tmk-v-united-states/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;p&gt;Slip Op. 24- UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE Court No. 21-00532 PAO TMK, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, and UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION and VALLOUREC STAR, LP, Defendant-Intervenors. Before: M. Miller Baker, Judge OPINION [The court sustains the agency’s redetermination.] Dated: October 25, 2024 Daniel J. Cannistra, Crowell &amp;amp; Moring LLP, Washing- ton, DC, on the comments for Plaintiff. Dominic L. Bianchi, General Counsel; Andrea C. Cas- son, Assistant General Counsel for Litigation; and Madeline R. Heeren, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commis- Ct. No. 21-00532 Page 2 sion, Washington, DC, on the comments for Defend- ant. Thomas M. Beline and Mary Jane Alves, Cassidy Levy Kent (USA) LLP, Washington, DC, on the comments for Defendant-Intervenor United States Steel Corpo- ration. Roger B. Schagrin and Elizabeth J. Drake, Schagrin Associates, Washington, DC, on the com- ments for Defendant-Intervenor Vallourec Star, LP. Baker, Judge: This case involving the International Trade Commission’s conclusion that imports of Rus- sian seamless pipe are non-negligible for purposes of a material injury determination returns following re- mand, where the Commission stood its ground. Find- ing the agency’s decision supported by substantial ev- idence, the court sustains it. I In 2020, the Commission found that purchases of seamless pipe from Russia just barely exceeded the statutory negligibility threshold (three percent of all such imports). PAO TMK v. United States, Ct. No. 21-00532, Slip Op. 23-150, at 4–6, 2023 WL 6939242, at **1–2. (CIT Oct. 12, 2023). 1 PAO TMK, a Russian producer, challenged that determination. As relevant here, the court remanded for the agency to address U.S. Customs and Border Protection data contradict- ing the conclusion that only Company A obtained 1 The court presumes the reader’s familiarity with its pre- vious opinion, including its use of pseudonyms for confiden- tial company names. Ct. No. 21-00532 Page 3 seamless pipe from Germany and only Company B did so from Mexico. Id. at 9, 2023 WL 6939242, at *3. 2 This matters because the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, requires dividing the amount of in-scope purchases 3 from a given country (here, Russia) during the relevant period (the numerator) by the total quan- tity of in-scope goods imported from all nations in that same period (the denominator). See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)(A)(i); see also Slip Op. 23-150, at 3, 2023 WL 6939242, at *1 (quoting the statute). Acquisitions from a country are “negligible”—and not subject to 2 The court also instructed the Commission to address TMK’s evidence of in-scope imports from Germany by Com- pany C. Id. at 10–11, 2023 WL 9639242, at *4. 3 “The statute governing unfair trade investigations re- quires a determination by the Commission on whether im- ported articles within the scope of a particular investiga- tion (the ‘subject merchandise’) have injured a domestic in- dustry.” Autoliv Asp, Inc. v. United States, 422 F. Supp. 3d 1295, 1300 (CIT 2019) (citing 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671, 1673). The Department of Commerce defines what is “within the scope” and the …&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt; &lt;a href="/opinion/10161325/pao-tmk-v-united-states/"&gt;Original document&lt;/a&gt; </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2024/10/25/pao_tmk_v._united_states.pdf" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="application/pdf"/><category term="Precedential"/></entry><entry><title>The Ancientree Cabinet Co., Ltd. v. United States</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10161177/the-ancientree-cabinet-co-ltd-v-united-states/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-10-24T00:00:00-07:00</published><author><name>United States Court of International Trade</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10161177/the-ancientree-cabinet-co-ltd-v-united-states/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;p&gt;Slip Op. 24-118 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE THE ANCIENTREE CABINET CO., LTD, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Before: Mark A. Barnett, Chief Judge Defendant, Court No. 23-00262 and AMERICAN KITCHEN CABINET ALLIANCE, Defendant-Intervenor. OPINION AND ORDER [Sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce’s final results in the antidumping duty administrative review on wooden cabinets and vanities and components thereof from the People’s Republic of China.] Dated: October 24, 2024 Gregory S. Menegaz, Alexandra H. Salzman, Vivien Jinghui Wang, and J. Kevin Horgan, deKieffer &amp;amp; Horgan, PLLC, of Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. Collin T. Mathias, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for Defendant. Also on the brief were Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy, Director, and Tara K. Hogan, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Heather Holman, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, DC. Luke A. Meisner and Alessandra A. Palazzolo, Schagrin Associates, of Washington, DC, for Defendant-Intervenor. Court No. 23-00262 Page 2 Barnett, Chief Judge: This case arises out of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce” or “the agency”) final results in the second administrative review of the antidumping duty (“AD”) order on wooden cabinets and vanities and components thereof from the People’s Republic of China (“China”) for the period of review (“POR”) April 1, 2021, through March 31, 2022. See Wooden Cabinets and Vanities and Components Thereof From the People’s Republic of China, 88 Fed. Reg. 76,729 (Dep’t Commerce Nov. 7, 2023) (final results and final determination of no shipments of the AD admin. rev.; 2021–2022) (“Final Results”), ECF No. 16-4. 1 In particular, this case involves Commerce’s rejection of Plaintiff’s ministerial error allegation. See Rejection of Untimely Ministerial Error Allegation (Nov. 20, 2023) (“Ministerial Error Mem.”), ECF No. 16-6. 2 Plaintiff, The Ancientree Cabinet Co., Ltd. (“Ancientree”), seeks judgment on the agency record pursuant to U.S. Court of International Trade (“USCIT”) Rule 56.2. Pl.’s Mot. for J. on the Agency R., ECF No. 28, and accompanying Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for J. Upon the Agency R. (“Pl.’s Mem.”), ECF No. 28-2; see also Pl.’s Reply Br., ECF No. 31. Defendant United States (“the Government”) and Defendant-Intervenor American 1 The administrative record filed in connection with the Final Results is divided into a Revised Public Administrative Record (“Rev. PR”), ECF No. 33-2, and a Confidential Administrative Record (“CR”), ECF No. 33-3. Parties submitted joint appendices containing record documents cited in their briefs. See Corrected Confid. J.A. (“CJA”), ECF No. 40; Corrected Public J.A., ECF No. 41. The court references the confidential version of the relevant record documents, unless otherwise specified. 2 Commerce’s final decision memorandum accompanies the Final Results, see Issues and Decision Mem., A-570-106 (Nov. 1, 2023), ECF No. 16-5, but the issues discussed therein are not contested here. Court No. 23-00262 Page 3 Kitchen Cabinet Alliance (“the Alliance”) urge the court to sustain Commerce’s Final Results. Def.’s Resp. to [Pl.’s] …&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt; &lt;a href="/opinion/10161177/the-ancientree-cabinet-co-ltd-v-united-states/"&gt;Original document&lt;/a&gt; </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2024/10/24/the_ancientree_cabinet_co._ltd._v._united_states.pdf" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="application/pdf"/><category term="Precedential"/></entry><entry><title>Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10145686/kaptan-demir-celik-endustrisi-ve-ticaret-as-v-united-states/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-10-21T00:00:00-07:00</published><author><name>United States Court of International Trade</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10145686/kaptan-demir-celik-endustrisi-ve-ticaret-as-v-united-states/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;p&gt;Slip Op. 24- UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE KAPTAN DEMIR CELIK ENDUSTRISI VE TICARET A.S., Plaintiff, and ICDAS CELIK ENERJI TERSANE VE ULASIM SANAYI, A.S., Plaintiff-Intervenor, Before: Gary S. Katzmann, Judge v. Court No. 23-00131 UNITED STATES, Defendant, and REBAR TRADE ACTION COALITION, Defendant-Intervenor. OPINION AND ORDER [The court remands the Final 2020 Review for Commerce’s further explanation or reconsideration of both of the determinations that Kaptan challenges] Dated: October 21, 2024 David L. Simon, Law Office of David L. Simon, PLLC, of Washington, D.C., argued for Plaintiff Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. With him on the brief was Mark B. Lehnardt. Jessica R. DiPietro, Leah N. Scarpelli, and Matthew M. Nolan, ArentFox Schiff LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff-Intervenor Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi, A.S. Kelley M. Geddes, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C., argued for Defendant the United States. With her on the briefs were Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy, Director, L. Misha Preheim, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the briefs was W. Mitch Court No. 23-00131 Page 2 Purdy, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, D.C. Maureen E. Thorston, Wiley Rein LLP, of Washington, D.C., argued for Defendant-Intervenor Rebar Trade Action Coalition. With her on the brief were Alan H. Price, John R. Shane, and Stephanie M. Bell. Katzmann, Judge: In 2020, the government of Turkey exempted Plaintiff Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. (“Kaptan”)—a Turkish producer of steel concrete reinforcing bar (“rebar”) 1—from a tax it normally imposes on certain transactions involving the exchange of foreign currency. Meanwhile, Nur Gemicilik ve Ticaret A.S. (“Nur”), a shipbuilding company affiliated with Kaptan, enjoyed rent-free industrial use of state-owned land. The U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”), in the 2020 administrative review of its countervailing duty order on rebar from Turkey, determined both of these boons to be countervailable subsidies benefitting Kaptan. See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From the Republic of Turkey: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Rescission, in Part; 2020, 88 Fed. Reg. 34129 (Dep’t Com. May 26, 2023), P.R. 156 (“Final 2020 Review”) and accompanying memorandum, Mem. from J. Maeder to L. Wang, re: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of Turkey; 2020 (Dep’t Com. May 22, 2023), P.R. 152 (“IDM”). Commerce calculated the value of these putative subsidies and issued equivalent ad valorem countervailing duties on Kaptan’s imports of rebar into the United States. See Final 2020 Review at 34130. 1 “௘‘Rebar,’ which is a portmanteau of ‘reinforcing’ and ‘bar,’ refers to rods of steel that are embedded into concrete as a means of strengthening the resulting structure.” Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States (“Kaptan I Remand”), 47 CIT __, __ n.1, 666 F. Supp. 3d 1334, 1336 n.1 (2023) (citations omitted). Court …&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt; &lt;a href="/opinion/10145686/kaptan-demir-celik-endustrisi-ve-ticaret-as-v-united-states/"&gt;Original document&lt;/a&gt; </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2024/10/21/kaptan_demir_celik_endustrisi_ve_ticaret_a.s._v._united_states.pdf" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="application/pdf"/><category term="Precedential"/></entry><entry><title>Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10160483/seneca-foods-corp-v-united-states/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-10-21T00:00:00-07:00</published><author><name>United States Court of International Trade</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10160483/seneca-foods-corp-v-united-states/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;p&gt;Slip Op. 24-117 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE SENECA FOODS CORP., Plaintiff, Before: Gary S. Katzmann, Judge Court No. 22-00243 v. PUBLIC VERSION UNITED STATES, Defendant. OPINION [ All eight of Commerce’s denials are sustained. Judgment on the agency record will enter for Defendant. ] Dated: October 21, 2024 James M. Smith, Covington &amp;amp; Burling LLP, of Washington, D.C., argued for Plaintiff Seneca Foods Corporation. With him on the briefs were Thomas Brugato, Kwan Woo (Kwan) Kim, and Edward J. Thomas III. Tara K. Hogan, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., argued for Defendant United States. With her on the briefs were Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Patricia M. McCarthy, Director. Of Counsel on the brief were Tristan De Vega, Attorney, and Kenneth Kessler, Senior Counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel for Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, D.C. Katzmann, Judge: This case involves Commerce’s discretion in evaluating requests for exclusion from Section 232 national security tariffs. Plaintiff Seneca Foods Corporation (“Seneca”) is the nation’s largest vegetable canner and the last food company in the U.S. that still makes its own cans. From 2020 to 2022, it faced one key impediment: Seneca struggled to find sufficient tin mill products (“TMP”), consisting of steel, in order to manufacture its cans. After trying and failing to source TMP domestically, Seneca placed import orders with foreign producers of TMP in 2021 and 2022. But foreign steel came at a higher cost. In 2018, the President imposed Court No. 22-00243 Page 2 PUBLIC VERSION 25 percent tariffs on imports of specific steel articles from all countries except Canada and Mexico. See Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States, Pres. Proc. No. 9705, 83 Fed. Reg. 11625 (Mar. 8, 2018). That tariff was imposed pursuant to the President’s authority under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, 19 U.S.C. § 1862. In October 2021, January 2022, and March 2022, Seneca submitted eight requests to the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) for exclusion from the 25 percent tariff, arguing that TMP was not produced in the United States in a sufficient and reasonably available amount. Commerce denied all eight requests in April and July of 2022. 1 Seneca then initiated this action challenging Commerce’s denials as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). On October 18, 2023, the court remanded all eight denials to Commerce for further explanation and reconsideration. See Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States (“Seneca 1 Of the eight requests filed by Seneca: x Five requests, filed in October 2021, were denied in April 2022. See Bureau of Indus. &amp;amp; Sec., Dep’t of Com., Steel Section 232 Remedy Exclusion Request, No. 257423 (Apr. 9, 2022), P.R. 1; Bureau of Indus. &amp;amp; Sec., Dep’t of Com., Steel Section 232 Remedy Exclusion Request, No. 257428 (Apr. 9, 2022), P.R. 50; Bureau of Indus. &amp;amp; Sec., Dep’t of Com., Steel Section 232 Remedy Exclusion Request, No. 257708 (Apr. …&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt; &lt;a href="/opinion/10160483/seneca-foods-corp-v-united-states/"&gt;Original document&lt;/a&gt; </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2024/10/21/seneca_foods_corp._v._united_states.pdf" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="application/pdf"/><category term="Precedential"/></entry><entry><title>Cozy Comfort Co. v. United States</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10143437/cozy-comfort-co-v-united-states/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-10-15T00:00:00-07:00</published><author><name>United States Court of International Trade</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10143437/cozy-comfort-co-v-united-states/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;p&gt;Slip Op. No. 24-114 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE COZY COMFORT COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff, Before: Stephen Alexander Vaden, Judge v. Court No. 1:22-cv-00173 (SAV) UNITED STATES, Defendant. OPINION [Granting in Part two of Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine and Denying Defendant’s Motion in Limine.] Dated: October 15, 2024 Christopher J. Duncan, Stein Shostak Shostak Pollack &amp;amp; O’Hara, LLP of Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff Cozy Comfort Company, LLC. With him on the brief were Elon Pollack as well as Gregory P. Sitrick, Isaac S. Crum, and Sharif S. Ahmed of Messner Reeves LLP of Phoenix, AZ. Beverly A. Farrell, Senior Trial Attorney, and Brandon A. Kennedy, Trial Attorney, International Trade Field Office, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice of New York, NY, for Defendant United States. With them on the brief were Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy, Director, Justin Miller, Attorney-in-Charge, Aimee Lee, Assistant Director, and Michael Anderson, Of Counsel, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel. Vaden, Judge: Plaintiff Cozy Comfort Company, LLC (Cozy Comfort) is suing to challenge the United States Customs and Border Protection’s (Customs) tariff classification of The Comfy® under heading 6110, which covers “[s]weaters, pullovers, Court No. 1:22-cv-00173 (SAV) Page 2 sweatshirts, waistcoats (vests) and similar articles, knitted or crocheted.” 6110, HTSUS; see Compl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 6. On June 12, 2024, the Court denied the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgement. See Min. Order, ECF No. 47. The Court then issued an order scheduling a bench trial to begin on October 21, 2024. See Order at 9, ECF No. 48. At the Court’s September 19, 2024 pre-trial conference, the parties indicated that they had objections to the other side’s proposed witnesses and exhibits. See Revised Pre-Trial Conf. Tr., ECF No. 64. The Court established a briefing schedule for the parties to file motions in limine and responses in opposition. See Min. Order, ECF No. 58. On October 11, 2024, the Court held a hearing on the Motions. See id. Decisions concerning evidentiary matters are within the sound discretion of the trial court. See N. Am. Processing Co. v. United States, 22 CIT 701, 703 (1998) (citing Curtin v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 846 F.2d 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). “Generally speaking, in limine rulings are preliminary in character because they determine the admissibility of evidence before the context of trial has actually been developed.” Walter Kidde Portable Equip., Inc. v. Universal Sec. Instruments, Inc., 479 F.3d 1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The admissibility of evidence, in turn, is governed by the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court. See Fed. R. Evid. 402. Within that framework, the Court reaches the following conclusions after considering each of the three witness-related motions in limine filed by the parties. First, the Court GRANTS in part Cozy Comfort’s Motion in Limine to exclude the Court No. 1:22-cv-00173 (SAV) Page 3 testimony of Patricia Concannon. Second, …&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt; &lt;a href="/opinion/10143437/cozy-comfort-co-v-united-states/"&gt;Original document&lt;/a&gt; </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2024/10/15/cozy_comfort_co._v._united_states.pdf" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="application/pdf"/><category term="Precedential"/></entry><entry><title>PT. Asia Pacific Fibers Tbk v. United States</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10141071/pt-asia-pacific-fibers-tbk-v-united-states/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-10-11T00:00:00-07:00</published><author><name>United States Court of International Trade</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10141071/pt-asia-pacific-fibers-tbk-v-united-states/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;p&gt;Slip Op. 24-113 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE : PT. ASIA PACIFIC FIBERS TBK, : : Plaintiff, : : Before: Richard K. Eaton, Judge v. : : Court No. 22-00007 UNITED STATES, : : Defendant, : : and : : UNIFI MANUFACTURING, INC. AND : NAN YA PLASTICS CORPORATION, : : Defendant-Intervenors. : : OPINION [U.S. Department of Commerce’s Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand are sustained.] Dated: October 11, 2024 Lizbeth R. Levinson, Fox Rothschild LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff PT. Asia Pacific Fibers Tbk. With her on the brief were Alexander D. Keyser and Brittney R. Powell. Collin T. Mathias, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C., for Defendant the United States. With him on the brief were Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy, Director, and L. Misha Preheim, Assistant Director. Of counsel was Leslie Mae Lewis, Office of Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, D.C. Julia A. Kuelzow, Kelley Drye &amp;amp; Warren LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Intervenors Unifi Manufacturing, Inc. and Nan Ya Plastics Corp. With her on the brief were Paul C. Rosenthal, David C. Smith, and Melissa M. Brewer. Court No. 22-00007 Page 2 Eaton, Judge: Before the court are the U.S. Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce” or the “Department”) results of redetermination pursuant to the court’s remand order in PT. Asia Pacific Fibers Tbk v. United States, 47 CIT , 673 F. Supp. 3d 1320 (2023) (“Asia Pacific”). See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, ECF No. 58-1 (“Remand Results”). The Remand Results are uncontested, and the parties ask the court to sustain them.1 See Pl.’s Cmts., ECF No. 60; Def.’s Resp., ECF No. 61. The court will sustain the Remand Results if they comply with the court’s remand order, are supported by substantial evidence on the record, and are otherwise in accordance with law. See 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). For the following reasons, the court sustains the Remand Results. BACKGROUND The relevant facts and procedural history are set out in the court’s prior Memorandum Opinion and Order, familiarity with which is presumed. See Asia Pacific, 47 CIT at , 673 F. Supp. 3d at 1323-27. This case involves Commerce’s final affirmative antidumping determination in the investigation of polyester textured yarn from Indonesia. See Polyester Textured Yarn From Indonesia, 86 Fed. Reg. 58,875 (Dep’t of Commerce Oct. 25, 2021) (“Final Determination”) and accompanying Issues and Decision Mem., PR 240. Plaintiff PT. Asia Pacific Fibers Tbk (“Plaintiff” or “Asia Pacific”) is a manufacturer of the subject yarn and a mandatory respondent in the investigation. 1 Defendant-Intervenors Unifi Manufacturing, Inc. and Nan Ya Plastics Corporation did not file comments on the Remand Results. Court No. 22-00007 Page 3 The underlying antidumping investigation took place during the COVID-19 global pandemic. The investigation covered the period October 1, 2019, through September 30, 2020. Commerce preliminarily determined an individual antidumping duty rate of 9.20% …&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt; &lt;a href="/opinion/10141071/pt-asia-pacific-fibers-tbk-v-united-states/"&gt;Original document&lt;/a&gt; </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2024/10/11/pt._asia_pacific_fibers_tbk_v._united_states.pdf" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="application/pdf"/><category term="Precedential"/></entry><entry><title>United States v. Koehler Oberkirch GmbH</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10132749/united-states-v-koehler-oberkirch-gmbh/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-10-10T00:00:00-07:00</published><author><name>United States Court of International Trade</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10132749/united-states-v-koehler-oberkirch-gmbh/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;p&gt;Slip Op. 24- UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, v. Before: Gary S. Katzmann, Judge KOEHLER OBERKIRCH GMBH, f/k/a Court No. 24-00014 PAPIERFABRIK AUGUST KOEHLER SE, f/k/a PAPIERFABRIK AUGUST KOEHLER AG; and KOEHLER PAPER SE, Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER [ The court denies Defendants’ Amended Motion to Certify Order for Immediate Appeal and Motion to Stay. ] Dated: October , 2024 Luke Mathers, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, New York, N.Y, for Plaintiff United States. With him on the brief were Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy, Director, Justin R. Miller, Attorney-in-Charge, International Trade Field Office, and Edward F. Kenny, Senior Trial Counsel. Of counsel were Sasha Khrebtukova, Attorney, and Brandon T. Rogers, Senior Attorney, Offices of the Assistant Chief Counsel, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, of New York, N.Y. and Indianapolis, IN. John F. Wood, Holland &amp;amp; Knight LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Defendants Koehler Oberkirch GmbH and Koehler Paper SE. With him on the brief were Andrew McAllister, Anna P. Hayes, and Stuart G. Nash. Katzmann, Judge: The prologue to this litigation has so far unfolded in two parts. In the first part, the court issued an interlocutory order permitting service on foreign defendants through their U.S.-based counsel. Now, in the second, the court addresses whether that order is appealable without the entry of final judgment. Court No. 24-00014 Page 2 Plaintiff the United States (“the Government”) initiated this action on January 24, 2024 in an effort to recover about $200 million in unpaid antidumping duties, including statutory interest, from Defendants Koehler Oberkirch GmbH (“Koehler GmbH”) and Koehler Paper SE (“Koehler SE”) (collectively, “Koehler” or “Defendants”), which comprise a German manufacturer of lightweight thermal paper. 1 See Am. Compl., Feb 8, 2024, ECF No. 4; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1582(3). In an Opinion and Order issued on August 21, 2024, the court granted the Government’s motion for leave to effect alternative service on Koehler pursuant to USCIT Rule 4(e)(3). See United States v. Koehler Oberkirch GmbH, 48 CIT __, Slip Op. No. 24-97 (Aug. 21, 2024) (“Alternative Service Order”). As authorized by that order, the Government served Koehler by delivering the Summons and Amended Complaint to Koehler’s counsel in Washington, DC on August 22, 2024. See Proof of Service, Aug. 27, 2024, ECF No. 27. Koehler now moves to certify the Alternative Service Order for appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(1). See Defs.’ Mot to Certify Order for Immediate Appeal, Aug. 30, 2024, ECF No. 28; see also Defs.’ Am. Mot to Certify Order for Immediate Appeal, Sept. 5, 2024, ECF No. 33 (“Mot. to Certify”). Koehler also moves to stay this case pending the outcome of the Motion to Certify and of any appeal that might ensue. See Defs.’ Mot. to Stay, Aug. 30, 2024, ECF No. 29. The Government opposes Koehler’s Motion to Certify. See Pl.’s Resp. in Opp. to Defs.’ Mot. to …&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt; &lt;a href="/opinion/10132749/united-states-v-koehler-oberkirch-gmbh/"&gt;Original document&lt;/a&gt; </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2024/10/10/united_states_v._koehler_oberkirch_gmbh.pdf" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="application/pdf"/><category term="Precedential"/></entry><entry><title>Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10135719/nippon-steel-corp-v-united-states/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-10-10T00:00:00-07:00</published><author><name>United States Court of International Trade</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10135719/nippon-steel-corp-v-united-states/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;p&gt;Slip Op. No. 24-112 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE NIPPON STEEL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, and JFE SHOJI CORPORATION and JFE SHOJI AMERICA, LLC, Plaintiff-Intervenors, Before: Stephen Alexander Vaden, Judge v. Court Nos. 1:21-cv-00533, 1:22-cv- UNITED STATES, 00183, 1:23-cv-00112 (SAV) Defendant, and NUCOR CORPORATION, STEEL DYNAMICS, INC., and SSAB ENTERPRISES, LLC, Defendant-Intervenors. OPINION [Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record in the case arising from the third administrative review; sustaining Commerce’s Remand Results in the case arising from the third administrative review; sustaining Commerce’s Final Determinations in the cases arising from the fourth and fifth administrative reviews.] Dated: October 10, 2024 Court Nos. 1:21-cv-00533, 1:22-cv-00183, 1:23-cv-00112 (SAV) Page 2 Shawn M. Higgins and Rajib Pal, Sidley Austin LLP, of Washington, DC, for Plaintiff Nippon Steel Corporation. With them on the briefs were Justin R. Becker and Lindsey A. Ricchi. Brenda A. Jacobs, Jacobs Global Trade &amp;amp; Compliance LLC, of McLean, VA, for Plaintiff-Intervenors JFE Shoji Corporation and JFE Shoji America, LLC. Stephen C. Tosini, Senior Trial Attorney, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for Defendant United States. With him on the brief were Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy, Director, Tara K. Hogan, Assistant Director, and Kyle S. Beckrich, Trial Attorney, and David W. Richardson, Of Counsel, Department of Commerce, Office of Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement &amp;amp; Compliance. Jeffrey D. Gerrish, Schagrin Associates, of Washington, DC, for Defendant-Intervenors Steel Dynamics, Inc. and SSAB Enterprises, LLC. With him on the brief was Roger B. Schagrin. Maureen E. Thorson, Wiley Rein LLP, of Washington, DC, for Defendant-Intervenor Nucor Corporation. With her on the brief was Alan H. Price, Christopher B. Weld, Jeffrey O. Frank, and Enbar Toledano. Vaden, Judge: These three cases address consecutive administrative reviews of the same antidumping duty order. Nippon Steel Corporation (Nippon Steel), a Japanese steel importer, was a mandatory respondent in each of the reviews. In the third administrative review, Nippon Steel failed to provide downstream sales data from one of its affiliated resellers despite the Department of Commerce’s (Commerce) repeated requests. Commerce applied a partial adverse inference to fill the gap left in the record by the missing data, and Nippon Steel now protests that Commerce did not support its determination with substantial evidence. Nippon Steel also challenged Commerce’s calculation of its U.S price in the third administrative review for failing to include certain revenue. Commerce requested a voluntary remand on that issue, and no party contests its Remand Results. Finally, Nippon Steel claims Court Nos. 1:21-cv-00533, 1:22-cv-00183, 1:23-cv-00112 (SAV) Page 3 that Commerce improperly deducted Section 232 duties from its U.S. prices to calculate the dumping margins in all three cases. Nippon Steel’s Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record challenging the application of a partial adverse inference is GRANTED. All others are DENIED. Commerce’s determinations in the fourth and fifth administrative reviews are SUSTAINED in full. BACKGROUND Before the Court are three lawsuits brought by …&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt; &lt;a href="/opinion/10135719/nippon-steel-corp-v-united-states/"&gt;Original document&lt;/a&gt; </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2024/10/10/nippon_steel_corp._v._united_states.pdf" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="application/pdf"/><category term="Precedential"/></entry><entry><title>Printing Textiles, LLC v. United States</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10131985/printing-textiles-llc-v-united-states/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-10-08T00:00:00-07:00</published><author><name>United States Court of International Trade</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10131985/printing-textiles-llc-v-united-states/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;p&gt;Slip Op. 24-110 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE PRINTING TEXTILES, LLC DBA BERGER TEXTILES, Plaintiff, v. Before: Timothy C. Stanceu, Judge UNITED STATES, Court No. 23-00192 Defendant, and ECKER TEXTILES, LLC, Defendant-Intervenor. OPINION Dated: October 8, 2024 [Denying plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the agency record in an action contesting a ruling that a product is within the scope of an antidumping duty order] Kyl J. Kirby, Kyl J. Kirby, Attorney and Counselor at Law, P.C., of Fort Worth, Texas, for plaintiff Printing Textiles, LLC d/b/a Berger Textiles. Christopher A. Berridge, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C., for defendant. With him on the brief were Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy, Director, Franklin E. White, Jr., Assistant Director, and Joseph Grossman- Trawick, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, D.C. George W. Thompson, Thompson &amp;amp; Associates, PLLC, of Washington, D.C., for defendant-intervenor Ecker Textiles, LLC. Court No. 23-00192 Page 2 Stanceu, Judge: Plaintiff Printing Textiles, LLC, d/b/a Berger Textiles (“Printing Textiles” or “Berger Textiles”), contests a determination by the International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce” or the “Department”), that plaintiff’s imports of “Canvas Banner Matisse” (“CBM”) are within the scope of an antidumping duty order on certain artist canvas from the People’s Republic of China (“China”). Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the agency record under USCIT Rule 56.2 (Feb. 26, 2024), ECF No. 19 (“Pl.’s Mot.”). The court will deny plaintiff’s motion and enter judgment in favor of defendant. I. BACKGROUND A. The Contested Determination Following an administrative proceeding (the “scope inquiry”), Commerce issued the contested determination as “Final Scope Ruling on the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Artist Canvas from the People’s Republic of China: Berger Textiles’ Canvas Banner Matisse” (Aug. 15, 2023), P.R. 23 (“Final Scope Ruling”).1 Commerce issued the Final Scope Ruling in response to a “Scope Ruling Application” (or “Scope Request”) (Dec. 15, 2022) (P.R. 1–3) submitted by Printing Textiles (“Scope Ruling Application”). 1 Documents in the Joint Appendix (July 8, 2024), ECF Nos. 23 (public), 26 (conf.) are cited herein as “P.R. Doc. __.” All citations to record documents are to the public versions. Court No. 23-00192 Page 3 B. The Antidumping Duty Order Commerce published the antidumping duty order involved in this litigation (the “Order”) as Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Artist Canvas from the People’s Republic of China, 71 Fed. Reg. 31,154 (Int’l Trade Admin. June 1, 2006) (the “Order”). C. Proceedings in the Court of International Trade Plaintiff commenced this action in September 2023. Summons (Sept. 14, 2023), ECF No. 1; Compl. (Sept. 15, 2023), ECF No. 5. Plaintiff filed its Rule 56.2 motion on Feb. 26, 2024. Pl.’s Mot. Defendant opposed plaintiff’s motion (Apr. 25, 2024), ECF No. 20, as did defendant-intervenor (Apr. 25, 2024), ECF No. 21, and plaintiff filed a reply (June 24, 2024), ECF No. 22. The …&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt; &lt;a href="/opinion/10131985/printing-textiles-llc-v-united-states/"&gt;Original document&lt;/a&gt; </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2024/10/08/printing_textiles_llc_v._united_states.pdf" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="application/pdf"/><category term="Precedential"/></entry><entry><title>InterGlobal Forest LLC v. United States</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10131433/interglobal-forest-llc-v-united-states/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-10-07T00:00:00-07:00</published><author><name>United States Court of International Trade</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10131433/interglobal-forest-llc-v-united-states/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;p&gt;Slip Op. 24- UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE INTERGLOBAL FOREST LLC, Plaintiff, Before: Mark A. Barnett, Chief Judge v. Court No. 22-00240 UNITED STATES, Defendant. OPINION [Denying Plaintiff’s application for attorney fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act.] Dated: October 7, 2024 Thomas H. Cadden, Cadden &amp;amp; Fuller LLP, of Irvine, CA for Plaintiff InterGlobal Forest LLC. Elizabeth A. Speck, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for Defendant United States. Also on the brief were Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy, Director, and Franklin E. White, Jr., Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Jennifer Petelle, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, of Washington, DC. Barnett, Chief Judge: Before the court is an application by Plaintiff InterGlobal Forest LLC (“IGF” or “Plaintiff”) for attorney fees. Confid. Appl. for Fees and Other Expenses Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“Form 15”), 1 ECF No. 23; see also Confid. Consol. Pl. [IGF’s] Mot. for Att’y Fees and Expenses Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) (“IGF Mem.”), ECF No. 20 (accompanying 1 IGF’s application for attorney fees was submitted on the U.S. Court of International Trade’s Form 15 and is referred to as such herein. Court No. 22-00240 Page 2 memorandum). 2 Plaintiff seeks an award for expenses and fees allegedly incurred in defending against U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (“Customs”) evasion determination pursuant to the Enforce and Protect Act (“EAPA”), 19 U.S.C. § 1517 (2018). For the following reasons, the court denies IGF’s application. BACKGROUND Plaintiff seeks an award of attorney fees associated with litigation challenging Customs’ evasion determination related to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain hardwood plywood from the People’s Republic of China (“China”). See Certain Hardwood Plywood Prods. From the People&amp;#x27;s Republic of China, 83 Fed. Reg. 504 (Dep’t Commerce Jan. 4, 2018) (am. final determination of sales at less than fair value, and antidumping duty order); Certain Hardwood Plywood Prods. From the People’s Republic of China, 83 Fed. Reg. 513 (Dep’t Commerce Jan. 4, 2018) (countervailing duty order) (together “the Plywood Orders”). The evasion investigation prompted other agency actions, including a covered merchandise referral to the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”), which in turn led to separate challenges at the court. The court assumes familiarity with the litigation underlying this application and the related challenges as set out in previous decisions. See Viet. Finewood Co. v. United States, 47 CIT __, 633 F. Supp. 3d 1243 (2023) (remanding affirmative scope determination); Far East Am., Inc. v. United States, 47 CIT __, 654 F. Supp. 3d 1308 2 This filing is titled “motion,” but in substance it is a memorandum in support of the application. This filing also includes a copy of IGF’s Form 15 that was subsequently revised in the now-operative version docketed at ECF No. 23. Court No. 22-00240 Page 3 (2023) (“Far East Scope”) (sustaining negative …&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt; &lt;a href="/opinion/10131433/interglobal-forest-llc-v-united-states/"&gt;Original document&lt;/a&gt; </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2024/10/07/interglobal_forest_llc_v._united_states.pdf" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="application/pdf"/><category term="Precedential"/></entry><entry><title>Keystone Auto. Operations, Inc. v. United States</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10131336/keystone-auto-operations-inc-v-united-states/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-10-07T00:00:00-07:00</published><author><name>United States Court of International Trade</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10131336/keystone-auto-operations-inc-v-united-states/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;p&gt;Slip Op. 24-108 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE OPERATIONS, INC., Plaintiff, Before: Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge v. Court No. 21-00215 UNITED STATES, Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER [Denying both Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s motions for summary judgment and ordering a trial in a Customs classification matter.] Dated: October 7, 2024 Eric R. Rock, Michael G. Hodes, and Serhiy Kiyasov, Rock Trade Law, LLC, of Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff Keystone Automotive Operations, Inc. Austin J. Eighan and Lawrence R. Pilon also appeared. Justin R. Miller, Attorney-in-Charge, International Trade Field Office, and Brandon A. Kennedy, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of New York, N.Y. With them on the brief were Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and Patricia M. McCarthy, Director. Of Counsel was Valerie Sorensen-Clark, General Attorney, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel for International Trade Litigation, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, of New York, N.Y. Alexandra Khrebtukova also appeared. Choe-Groves, Judge: This case addresses whether various side bars, nerf bars, and bars (collectively “subject merchandise”) attached to motor vehicles are Court No. 21-00215 Page 2 considered “side protective attachments” as described in U.S. Note 20(iii)(213) to Subchapter III of Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) and are therefore excluded from a 25% ad valorem rate of duty applied to various products imported from the People’s Republic of China (“China”). See Notice of Product Exclusion Extensions, 85 Fed. Reg. 48,600 (USTR Aug. 11, 2020) (China’s acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation); U.S. Note 20(iii)(213), Subchapter III, Chapter 99, HTSUS. Before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment. Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. &amp;amp; Mem. Law Supp. Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. (Dec. 7, 2023) (“Pl.’s Br.”), ECF Nos. 48, 49; Def.’s Cross-Mot. Summ. J. &amp;amp; Mem. Law Supp. &amp;amp; Opp’n Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. (Feb. 16, 2024) (“Def.’s Br.”), ECF Nos. 50, 51. Keystone Automotive Operations, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Keystone”) argues that the subject merchandise are subject to the exclusion from the 25% ad valorem rate of duty because they meet the description of “side protective attachments” that are made of steel, were entered into the United States for consumption within the timeframe provided in the exclusion notice, and were properly classified under ten- digit HTSUS subheading 8708.29.5060. Pl.’s Br. at ௅. The Government counters that the subject merchandise do not meet the exclusion’s description of “side protective attachments” made of steel because all Court No. 21-00215 Page 3 of Keystone’s imported products consist of rubberized plastic steps mounted on steel bars that attach to the sides of vehicles and whose primary function and use is assisting an individual in entering and exiting a high road clearance vehicle by using the step pads. Def.’s Br. at 13௅27. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies both Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s cross-motions for summary judgment and will schedule a bench trial forthwith. ISSUE PRESENTED Whether the subject merchandise meet the description of “side protective attachments” …&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt; &lt;a href="/opinion/10131336/keystone-auto-operations-inc-v-united-states/"&gt;Original document&lt;/a&gt; </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2024/10/07/keystone_auto._operations_inc._v._united_states.pdf" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="application/pdf"/><category term="Precedential"/></entry><entry><title>Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. v. United States</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10130452/maquilacero-sa-de-cv-v-united-states/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-10-04T00:00:00-07:00</published><author><name>United States Court of International Trade</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10130452/maquilacero-sa-de-cv-v-united-states/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;p&gt;0s44 ! ! !&amp;quot; ! &amp;quot; 0%s28s**7 %2( &amp;quot; 32730s(%8)(0%s28s** )*36))22s*)6,3)63:)79(+) : 3273039683 ! )*)2(%28 %2( ! !!! )*)2(%2828)6:)236 0(7?3@6;@9F:7+ ) 7B3DF?7@FA8A??7D57SE8;@3&amp;gt;D7EG&amp;gt;FE;@F:7 O 36?;@;EFD3F;H7D7H;7IA8F:73@F;6G?B;@96GFKAD67DA@&amp;gt;;9:FI3&amp;gt;&amp;gt;76D75F3@9G&amp;gt;3D B;B73@6FG478DA?#7J;5A 1 3F76%5FA47D A@EA&amp;gt; AGDF$A &amp;amp;397 ;3@3;?;FD;G5&amp;#x27;G3;3 A:@# GD&amp;gt;7K#3D;A *ADD;5AD7@FAJ)5:;88&amp;quot;&amp;quot;&amp;amp; A8s3E:;@9FA@ 3@6/G@3AD7@FAJ)5:;88&amp;quot;&amp;quot;&amp;amp;A8$7I/AD=$ / 8AD &amp;amp;&amp;gt;3;@F;88E#3CG;&amp;gt;357DA) 67 , 3@6*75@;53E7&amp;gt;G;6AE) 67 , &amp;quot;73: $ )53DB7&amp;gt;&amp;gt;;3&amp;gt;EA3BB73D76 788D7K# s;@FA@#;5:37&amp;gt; :3B?3@?D;7F:3$7&amp;gt;&amp;gt;3@,;$ #3; AAKAG@ 7A@93@6(G4K(A6D;9G7Ls;@FA@:3B?3@&amp;amp;&amp;quot;&amp;quot;A8s3E:;@9FA@ 8AD A@EA&amp;gt;;63F76&amp;amp;&amp;gt;3;@F;88&amp;amp;7D8;&amp;gt;7E&amp;quot;#) 67 , D3@=&amp;gt;;@ s:;F7 D EE;EF3@F;D75FAD3@6!D;EF;@ %&amp;gt;EA@*D;3&amp;gt;FFAD@7K A??7D5;3&amp;gt;&amp;quot;;F;93F;A@D3@5:;H;&amp;gt;;H;E;A@+ ) 7B3DF?7@FA8 GEF;57A8 s3E:;@9FA@ 8AD787@63@F+@;F76)F3F7E s;F:F:7?A@F:74D;78I7D7 D;3@# AK@FA@&amp;amp;D;@5;B3&amp;gt;7BGFKEE;EF3@FFFAD@7K7@7D3&amp;gt;3@6&amp;amp;3FD;5;3# #53DF:K;D75FAD %85AG@E7&amp;gt;A@F:74D;78I3E:D;EFAB:7D!;?GD3FFAD@7K %88;57A8F:7:;78AG@E7&amp;gt;8AD*D367@8AD57?7@F3@6A?B&amp;gt;;3@57+ ) 7B3DF?7@FA8A??7D57A8s3E:;@9FA@ !3D3# s7EF7D53?B3&amp;gt;EA 3BB73D76 &amp;gt;3@ &amp;amp;D;57(A47DF 7D3@57E5A 3=7( D;E5:=@75:F3@6!;?47D&amp;gt;K (7K@A&amp;gt;6Es;&amp;gt;7K(7;@&amp;quot;&amp;quot;&amp;amp;A8s3E:;@9FA@ 8AD787@63@F@F7DH7@AD$G5AD *G4G&amp;gt;3D&amp;amp;DA6G5FE@5 :A7DAH7E G697&amp;amp;&amp;gt;3;@F;88E#3CG;&amp;gt;357DA) 67 , P#3CG;&amp;gt;357DAQ 3@6*75@;53E67&amp;gt;G;6AE) 67 , P*&amp;quot;+Q5A&amp;gt;&amp;gt;75F;H7&amp;gt;KP&amp;amp;&amp;gt;3;@F;88EQ8;&amp;gt;76 F:;E35F;A@BGDEG3@FFA + ) M 5A@F7EF;@9F:78;@3&amp;gt;D7EG&amp;gt;FE;@F:7 O 36?;@;EFD3F;H7D7H;7IA8F:7+ ) 7B3DF?7@FA8A??7D57PA??7D57Q ;@&amp;quot;;9:Fs3&amp;gt;&amp;gt;76(75F3@9G&amp;gt;3D&amp;amp;;B73@6*G478DA?#7J;5AP;@3&amp;gt;(7EG&amp;gt;FEQ 76 (79 7BSFA8A??7D57#3K 3?7@6768;@3&amp;gt;D7EG&amp;gt;FEA8 3@F;6G?B;@96GFK36?;@ D7H;7I O &amp;amp;( 3@6355A?B3@K;@9EEG7E 3@675;E;A@#7?AD3@6G?8ADF:7;@3&amp;gt;(7EG&amp;gt;FEA8@F;6G?B;@9GFK A@EA&amp;gt; AGDF$A &amp;amp;397 6?;@;EFD3F;H7(7H;7I O &amp;quot;;9:Fs3&amp;gt;&amp;gt;76(75F3@9G&amp;gt;3D&amp;amp;;B73@6*G47 8DA?#7J;5A7BSFA8A??7D57#3D P;@3&amp;gt;#Q&amp;amp;( %@G9GEF A??7D57BG4&amp;gt;;E:763@3@F;6G?B;@96GFKAD67DA@ &amp;gt;;9:FI3&amp;gt;&amp;gt;76D75F3@9G&amp;gt;3DB;B73@6FG478DA?#7J;5AF:7&amp;amp;7AB&amp;gt;7SE(7BG4&amp;gt;;5A8 :;@33@6F:7(7BG4&amp;gt;;5A8!AD73 &amp;quot;;9:Fs3&amp;gt;&amp;gt;76(75F3@9G&amp;gt;3D&amp;amp;;B73@6*G478DA? #7J;5AF:7&amp;amp;7AB&amp;gt;7SE(7BG4&amp;gt;;5A8:;@33@6F:7(7BG4&amp;gt;;5A8!AD7376 (79 7BSFA8A??7D57G9 @AF;57A83?7@6768;@3&amp;gt;67F7D?;@3F;A@ A8E3&amp;gt;7E3F&amp;gt;7EEF:3@83;DH3&amp;gt;G7P%D67DQ #3CG;&amp;gt;357DA&amp;amp;7D8;&amp;gt;7EK7DD3&amp;lt;7E&amp;quot;#) 67 , P&amp;amp;7D8;&amp;gt;7EQ3@6 (79;A?A@F3@367&amp;amp;7D8;&amp;gt;7EK*G4AE) 67 , P(79;ABKFE3QB3DF;5;B3F76;@ A??7D57SE36?;@;EFD3F;H7D7H;7IE8ADF:7K73DE O 3@6 O )77 ;@3&amp;gt;(7EG&amp;gt;FE76 (79 &amp;quot;;9:Fs3&amp;gt;&amp;gt;76(75F3@9G&amp;gt;3D&amp;amp;;B73@6*G478DA? #7J;5AP&amp;quot;s(&amp;amp;*8DA?#7J;5A O ;@3&amp;gt;(7EG&amp;gt;FEQ76 (79 7BSFA8A??7D57 G@ 8;@3&amp;gt;D7EG&amp;gt;FEA83@F;6G?B;@96GFK36?;@ D7H;7I O 3@6355A?B3@K;@9EEG7E3@675;E;A@#7?AD3@6G? P&amp;quot;s(&amp;amp;*8DA?#7J;5A O ;@3&amp;gt;#Q&amp;quot;;9:Fs3&amp;gt;&amp;gt;76(75F3@9G&amp;gt;3D&amp;amp;;B73@6 *G478DA?#7J;5AP&amp;quot;s(&amp;amp;*8DA?#7J;5A O ;@3&amp;gt;(7EG&amp;gt;FEQ76 (79 ;F3F;A@EFAF:736?;@;EFD3F;H7D75AD6D78&amp;gt;75FF:7BG4&amp;gt;;536?;@;EFD3F;H7D75AD6 P&amp;amp;(Q3@65A@8;67@F;3&amp;gt;36?;@;EFD3F;H7D75AD6P(Q6A5G?7@F@G?47DE $AE A@EA&amp;gt; AGDF$A &amp;amp;397 7BSFA8A??7D57BD 8;@3&amp;gt;D7EG&amp;gt;FEA83@F;6G?B;@96GFK 36?;@ D7H;7I O 3@6355A?B3@K;@9EEG7E3@675;E;A@#7?AD3@6G? P&amp;quot;s(&amp;amp;*8DA?#7J;5A O #Q A??7D575A@6G5F76F:;E36?;@;EFD3F;H7D7H;7I8ADF:7B7D;A68DA?G9GEF F:DAG9: G&amp;gt;K @;F;3F;A@A8@F;6G?B;@93@6AG@F7DH3;&amp;gt;;@9GFK 6?;@ (7H;7IE76 (79 7BSFA8A??7D57%5F &amp;amp;( A??7D57E7&amp;gt;75F76#3CG;&amp;gt;357DA *&amp;quot;+5A&amp;gt;&amp;gt;3BE763E3E;@9&amp;gt;77@F;FK3@6 (79;ABKFE33EF:7?3@63FADKD7EBA@67@FE;@F:7D7H;7I )77A??7D57SE O @F;6G?B;@9GFK6?;@ (7H;7IA8&amp;quot;;9:Fs3&amp;gt;&amp;gt;76(75F3@9G&amp;gt;3D&amp;amp;;B73@6 *G478DA?#7J;5A(7EBA@67@F)7&amp;gt;75F;A@P(7EB )7&amp;gt;75F;A@#7? Q%5F &amp;amp;( &amp;amp;&amp;gt;3;@F;88EEG4?;FF76F:7;DCG7EF;A@@3;D7D7EBA@E7E )75 &amp;#x27;G7EF;A@@3;D7(7EB #3CG;&amp;gt;357DA) 67 , P#3CG;&amp;gt;357DASE)75 &amp;#x27;(Q&amp;amp;( O( O )75 &amp;#x27;G7EF;A@@3;D7(7EB #3CG;&amp;gt;357DA) 67 , P#3CG;&amp;gt;357DASE)75 &amp;#x27;(Q&amp;amp;( ( )75F;A@&amp;#x27;G7EF;A@@3;D7(7EB #3CG;&amp;gt;357DA) 67 , P#3CG;&amp;gt;357DASE)75 &amp;#x27;(Q&amp;amp;( ( #3CG;&amp;gt;357DA) 67 , SEAI@EFD73?)3&amp;gt;7E)G4?;EE;A@A8*75@;53E7 &amp;gt;G;A6AE) 67 , P#3CG;&amp;gt;357DASEAI@EFD73?)3&amp;gt;7E(7EB Q&amp;amp;(( (7EB #3CG;&amp;gt;357DA) 67 , SE;DEF)GBB&amp;gt; )75 &amp;#x27;G7EF;A@@3;D7(7EB A@EA&amp;gt; AGDF$A &amp;amp;397 P#3CG;&amp;gt;357DASE;DEF)GBB&amp;gt; )75 &amp;#x27;(Q G&amp;gt;K &amp;amp;( ( O %@)7BF7?47D A??7D57BG4&amp;gt;;E:76;FEBD7&amp;gt;;?;@3DK67F7D?;@3F;A@ &amp;quot;;9:Fs3&amp;gt;&amp;gt;76(75F3@9G&amp;gt;3D&amp;amp;;B73@6*G478DA?#7J;5AP&amp;amp;D7&amp;gt;;?;@3DK(7EG&amp;gt;FEQ 76 (79 7BSFA8A??7D57)7BF BD7&amp;gt;;? D7EG&amp;gt;FE3@6B3DF D7E5;EE;A@A8F:73@F;6G?B;@96GFK36?;@ D7H;7I O &amp;amp;( 3@6 355A?B3@K;@975;E;A@#7?AD3@6G?8ADF:7&amp;amp;D7&amp;gt;;?;@3DK(7EG&amp;gt;FEA8@F;6G?B;@9 GFK6?;@;EFD3F;H7(7H;7IP&amp;amp;#Q&amp;amp;( A??7D5767F7D?;@76 BD7&amp;gt;;?;@3D;&amp;gt;KF:3F&amp;amp;&amp;gt;3;@F;88E?367E3&amp;gt;7EA8EG4&amp;lt;75F?7D5:3@6;E73FBD;57E47&amp;gt;AI @AD?3&amp;gt;H3&amp;gt;G76GD;@9F:7B7D;A6A8D7H;7I5A@F;@G76FA5A&amp;gt;&amp;gt;3BE73@6FD73F #3CG;&amp;gt;357DA3@6*&amp;quot;+3E3E;@9&amp;gt;77@F;FK5&amp;gt;3EE;8;7657DF3;@E3&amp;gt;7E?3674K #3CG;&amp;gt;357DA *&amp;quot;+F:DAG9:F:7&amp;amp;DA9D3?8ADF:7&amp;amp;DA?AF;A@A8#3@G835FGD;@9 #3CG;&amp;gt;36AD33@6JB7DF)7DH;57EP##.QADP##.&amp;amp;DA9D3?Q3E:A?7 ?3D=7FE3&amp;gt;7E3@63BB&amp;gt;;7636;887D7@F;3&amp;gt;BD;5;@93@3&amp;gt;KE;E )77&amp;amp;#3F O *:7&amp;amp;3DF;7EEG4?;FF76366;F;A@3&amp;gt;4D;78;@9 #3CG;&amp;gt;357DASE&amp;amp;AEF&amp;amp;D7&amp;gt;;? )GBB&amp;gt; &amp;#x27;(&amp;amp;( ( O (7EG4?;EE;A@A8#3CG;&amp;gt;357DASE6?;@ 3E73@6 (74GFF3&amp;gt;DE &amp;amp;( ( (7EG4?;EE;A@A8$G5ADSE6?;@ (74GFF3&amp;gt;D &amp;amp;( ( A??7D57BG4&amp;gt;;E:76;FE8;@3&amp;gt;67F7D?;@3F;A@A@#3D5: 3@6;EEG76 ;FE3?7@676;@3&amp;gt;(7EG&amp;gt;FE3@6;@3&amp;gt;#A@#3K FA5ADD75F3?;@;EF7D;3&amp;gt; A@EA&amp;gt; AGDF$A &amp;amp;397 7DDADD3;E764K(79;ABKFE3 ;@3&amp;gt;(7EG&amp;gt;FE76 (79 &amp;quot;;9:Fs3&amp;gt;&amp;gt;76 (75F3@9G&amp;gt;3D&amp;amp;;B73@6*G478DA?#7J;5A76 (79 7BSFA8 A??7D57#3D 8;@3&amp;gt;D7EG&amp;gt;FEA83@F;6G?B;@96GFK36?;@ D7H;7I O ;@3&amp;gt;# A??7D575A@F;@G76FA5A&amp;gt;&amp;gt;3BE7#3CG;&amp;gt;357DA3@6*&amp;quot;+ 5A@E;67D76*&amp;quot;+SE8GDF:7DBDA57EE76BDA6G5FE3E;@E5AB7?7D5:3@6;E7G@67DF:7 3@F;6G?B;@9AD67D5A@F;@G76FA5&amp;gt;3EE;8K#3CG;&amp;gt;357DA *&amp;quot;+SEH;DFG3&amp;gt;7JBADF E3&amp;gt;7EF:DAG9:F:7##.&amp;amp;DA9D3?3E:A?7?3D=7FE3&amp;gt;7E675&amp;gt;;@76FA36&amp;lt;GEF A??7D57SE5A?BGF7DBDA9D3??;@9FA;@5&amp;gt;G6738GDF:7DBDA57EE;@9H3D;34&amp;gt;7FA 6;887D7@F;3F747FI77@F:7BDA6G5FEBDA6G5764K#3CG;&amp;gt;357DA3@6*&amp;quot;+3@6 675&amp;gt;;@76FA36&amp;lt;GEF;FE6;887D7@F;3&amp;gt;BD;5;@93@3&amp;gt;KE;EAD;FE3BB&amp;gt;;53F;A@A8F:7A:7@SE F7EF ;@3&amp;gt;#3FO O O &amp;amp;&amp;gt;3;@F;88E8;&amp;gt;76F:;E35F;A@BGDEG3@FFA + ) M 5A@F7EF;@9 A??7D57SE;@3&amp;gt;(7EG&amp;gt;FE )77A?B&amp;gt; $A 78AD7F:7AGDF;E&amp;amp;&amp;gt;3;@F;88ES#AF;A@8AD G69?7@FA@F:7(75AD6&amp;amp;GDEG3@F FA+)*(G&amp;gt;7 &amp;amp;&amp;gt;E S#AF 97@5K( #7? &amp;quot;3I)GBB #AF 97@5K( &amp;amp;GDEG3@F+)*( P&amp;amp;&amp;gt;3;@F;88ES#AF;A@QADP&amp;amp;&amp;gt;E SD Q$AE &amp;gt;EA478AD7F:7AGDF;EA@EA&amp;gt;;63F76&amp;amp;&amp;gt;3;@F;88&amp;amp;7D8;&amp;gt;7E&amp;quot;#) 67 , SE PA@EA&amp;gt;;63F76&amp;amp;&amp;gt;3;@F;88QADP&amp;amp;7D8;&amp;gt;7EQ#AF;A@8AD G69?7@FA@F:797@5K (75AD6 #AF A@EA&amp;gt; &amp;amp;&amp;gt; 97@5K( PA@EA&amp;gt;;63F76&amp;amp;&amp;gt;3;@F;88SE#AF;A@QAD A@EA&amp;gt; AGDF$A &amp;amp;397 PA@EA&amp;gt; &amp;amp;&amp;gt; SE#AF Q$A E773&amp;gt;EAD &amp;amp;7D8;&amp;gt;7E&amp;quot;#) 67 , )GBB ( #AF 97@5K( PA@EA&amp;gt; &amp;amp;&amp;gt; SED Q$A 787@63@F+@;F76)F3F7EP787@63@FQ8;&amp;gt;76787@63@FSE(7EBA@E7FA &amp;amp;&amp;gt;3;@F;88SE3@6&amp;amp;&amp;gt;3;@F;88@F7DH7@ADSE(G&amp;gt;7 #AF;A@E8AD G69?7@FA@F:7 97@5K(75AD6 78 SE(7EB &amp;amp;&amp;gt; SE&amp;amp;&amp;gt; @F7DH SE( #AFE 97@5K( P78 SE(7EB Q$A 787@63@F@F7DH7@AD$G5AD*G4G&amp;gt;3D&amp;amp;DA6G5FE @5 P787@63@F@F7DH7@ADQADP$G5ADQ8;&amp;gt;76787@63@F@F7DH7@ADSE(7EBA@E7 FA#AF;A@8AD G69?7@FA@F:797@5K(75AD6 78 @F7DH SE(7EB #AFE 97@5K( P78 @F7DH SE(7EB Q$AE &amp;amp;&amp;gt;3;@F;88E8;&amp;gt;76F:7;DD7B&amp;gt;K 4D;78 (7B&amp;gt;KD 78 78 @F7DH SE(7EB D P&amp;amp;&amp;gt;E S(7B&amp;gt;KD Q$AE %D3&amp;gt;3D9G?7@FI3E:7&amp;gt;6A@ G@7 %D3&amp;gt;D9 $A &amp;amp;&amp;gt;3;@F;88E8;&amp;gt;76I;F:F:7AGDF7J57DBFE8DA?F:7&amp;lt;A;@F3BB7@6;JF:3FI7D7 D787D7@5766GD;@9AD3&amp;gt;3D9G?7@F (7EB AGDF(7CG7EF$AE ADF:78A&amp;gt;&amp;gt;AI;@9D73EA@EF:7AGDFD7?3@6EF:7;@3&amp;gt;(7EG&amp;gt;FE &amp;amp;7D8;&amp;gt;7EK7DD3&amp;lt;7E&amp;quot;#) 67 , ;@5ADBAD3F7E4KD787D7@573&amp;gt;&amp;gt;3D9G?7@FE ?3674K&amp;amp;&amp;gt;3;@F;88E;@5:3&amp;gt;&amp;gt;7@9;@9F:7;@3&amp;gt;(7EG&amp;gt;FE )77A@EA&amp;gt; &amp;amp;&amp;gt; SED 3F O Ps7G@67DEF3@6F:3F#3CG;&amp;gt;357DA3@6*&amp;quot;+3D7?3=;@93D9G?7@FE;@F:7;D4D;78 FAF:7AGDF I7I;&amp;gt;&amp;gt;@AFD7B73FF:AE77JB&amp;gt;3@3F;A@E4GF;@5ADBAD3F7F:7?4K D787D7@57 Q *:7AGDF9D3@F76787@63@F@F7DH7@ADSEA@E7@F#AF;A@8ADDD3F3$A 8AD5ADD75F;A@EFA47677?76?367I;F:AGFB:KE;53&amp;gt;EG4EF;FGF;A@A8787@63@F @F7DH7@ADSE(7EBA@E7FA#AF;A@E8AD G69?7@FA@F:797@5K(75AD6 %D67D 3@ $A A@EA&amp;gt; AGDF$A &amp;amp;397 ! *:7AGDFD7H;7IEF:78A&amp;gt;&amp;gt;AI;@9;EEG7E s:7F:7DA??7D57SE67F7D?;@3F;A@F:3F*&amp;quot;+SE8GDF:7DBDA57EE76 BDA6G5FE3D7;@E5AB7?7D5:3@6;E7;EEGBBADF764KEG4EF3@F;3&amp;gt; 7H;67@573@6;@355AD63@57I;F:&amp;gt;3I s:7F:7DA??7D57SE67F7D?;@3F;A@FA5A&amp;gt;&amp;gt;3BE7#3CG;&amp;gt;357DA *&amp;quot;+ ;EEGBBADF764KEG4EF3@F;3&amp;gt;7H;67@573@6;@355AD63@57I;F:&amp;gt;3I s:7F:7DA??7D57SED7&amp;lt;75F;A@A8F:7?3@G835FGD7D5A673@6F:7 8GDF:7DBDA57EE;@9H3D;34&amp;gt;7;@;FE?A67&amp;gt;?3F5:?7F:A6A&amp;gt;A9K;E EGBBADF764KEG4EF3@F;3&amp;gt;7H;67@573@6;@355AD63@57I;F:&amp;gt;3I s:7F:7DA??7D57SE67F7D?;@3F;A@FAFD73F*&amp;quot;+SEE3&amp;gt;7E?367 F:DAG9:F:7##.BDA9D3?3E:A?7?3D=7FE3&amp;gt;7E;EEGBBADF764K EG4EF3@F;3&amp;gt;7H;67@573@6;@355AD63@57I;F:&amp;gt;3I3@6 s:7F:7DA??7D57SE67F7D?;@3F;A@FAD7&amp;gt;KA@F:7A:7@SEF7EF;@ 5A@6G5F;@9F:76;887D7@F;3&amp;gt;BD;5;@93@3&amp;gt;KE;E;E;@355AD63@57I;F:&amp;gt;3I 3@6EGBBADF764KEG4EF3@F;3&amp;gt;7H;67@57 ! *:7AGDF:3E&amp;lt;GD;E6;5F;A@BGDEG3@FFA)75F;A@ 3 ;A8F:7*3D;88 5FA8 3E3?7@676 + ) M 33 H;3@6 + ) M 5 *:7AGDFI;&amp;gt;&amp;gt;:A&amp;gt;6G@&amp;gt;3I8G&amp;gt;3@K67F7D?;@3F;A@8AG@6FA47G@EGBBADF764K A@EA&amp;gt; AGDF$A &amp;amp;397 EG4EF3@F;3&amp;gt;7H;67@57A@F:7D75AD6ADAF:7DI;E7@AF;@355AD63@57I;F:&amp;gt;3I + ) M 34 ; ! &amp;#x27;34))8)61s2%8s32 )+%06%1);36/*36&amp;#x27;34))8)61s2%8s32 *:767E5D;BF;A@EA8?7D5:3@6;E75AH7D764KF:7E5AB7A83@3@F;6G?B;@9AD 5AG@F7DH3;&amp;gt;;@96GFKAD67D?GEF47ID;FF7@;@97@7D3&amp;gt;F7D?E3@6CG7EF;A@E?3K3D;E7 3EFAI:7F:7D3B3DF;5G&amp;gt;3DBDA6G5F;E;@5&amp;gt;G676I;F:;@F:7E5AB7A83@AD67D …&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt; &lt;a href="/opinion/10130452/maquilacero-sa-de-cv-v-united-states/"&gt;Original document&lt;/a&gt; </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2024/10/04/maquilacero_s.a._de_c.v._v._united_states.pdf" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="application/pdf"/><category term="Precedential"/></entry><entry><title>Glock, Inc. v. United States</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10130338/glock-inc-v-united-states/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-10-04T00:00:00-07:00</published><author><name>United States Court of International Trade</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10130338/glock-inc-v-united-states/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;p&gt;Slip Op. 24-106 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE GLOCK, INC., Plaintiff, Before: Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge v. Court No. 23-00046 UNITED STATES, Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER [Granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Admitted its Requests for Admission and Compel Other Discovery Responses from Defendant.] Dated: October 4, 2024 John F. Renzulli and Peter V. Malfa, Renzulli Law Firm, LLP, of White Plains, N.Y., and Jason M. Kenner, Sandler, Travis &amp;amp; Rosenberg, PA, of New York, N.Y., for Plaintiff Glock, Inc. Justin R. Miller, Attorney-in-Charge, and Marcella Powell, Senior Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C., for Defendant United States. With them on the brief were Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and Patricia M. McCarthy, Director. Of counsel was Taylor Bates, Attorney, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel for International Trade Litigation, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Monica P. Triana also appeared. Choe-Groves, Judge: Plaintiff Glock, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Glock”) brings this action to contest the liquidation, appraisement, and valuation by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) of a single entry of pistol component parts Court No. 23-00046 Page 2 imported as kits. Compl., ECF No. 7. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Admitted its Requests for Admission and Compel Other Discovery Responses from Defendant. Pl.’s Mot. Deem Admitted Reqs. Admis. &amp;amp; Compel Other Disc. Resps. Def. (“Plaintiff’s Motion” or “Pl.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 18. Plaintiff seeks an order (1) deeming Plaintiff’s First Requests for Admissions Directed to Defendant (“Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions”) admitted by Defendant United States (“Defendant”), (2) striking Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories Directed to Defendant (“Plaintiff’s Interrogatories”) as untimely, (3) overruling Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s First Requests for Production of Documents and Things Directed to Defendant (“Plaintiff’s Requests for Production”) and Plaintiff’s Interrogatories, (4) directing Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production and Plaintiff’s Interrogatories, and (5) awarding attorneys’ fees. Id.; see also Pl.’s Mot. at Ex. A (“Pl.’s Reqs. Produc.”), ECF No. 18-1; Pl.’s Mot. at Ex. B (“Pl.’s Interrog.”), ECF No. 18-2; Pl.’s Mot. Ex. C (“Pl.’s Reqs. Admis.”), ECF No. 18-3. Defendant filed Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Admitted its Requests for Admission and Compel Other Discovery Responses. Def.’s Resp. Pl.’s Mot. Deem Admitted Reqs. Admis. &amp;amp; Compel Other Disc. Resps. (“Defendant’s Response” or “Def.’s Resp.”), ECF No. 34. Plaintiff filed Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of its Motion to Deem Admitted its Requests for Admission and Compel Other Court No. 23-00046 Page 3 Discovery Responses from Defendant. Pl.’s Reply Supp. Mot. Deem Admitted Reqs. Admis. &amp;amp; Compel Other Disc. Resps. Def. (“Plaintiff’s Reply” or “Pl.’s Reply”), ECF No. 36. For the below discussed reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is granted in part and denied in part. BACKGROUND Plaintiff is a United States company that produces Glock pistols. Compl. ¶ 1. Plaintiff manufactures certain models of pistols from domestically manufactured components and assembles other models using imported components produced by foreign manufacturers. Id. The Glock trademarks …&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt; &lt;a href="/opinion/10130338/glock-inc-v-united-states/"&gt;Original document&lt;/a&gt; </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2024/10/04/glock_inc._v._united_states.pdf" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="application/pdf"/><category term="Precedential"/></entry><entry><title>Zhejiang Amerisun Tech. Co. v. United States</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10128897/zhejiang-amerisun-tech-co-v-united-states/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-10-02T00:00:00-07:00</published><author><name>United States Court of International Trade</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10128897/zhejiang-amerisun-tech-co-v-united-states/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;p&gt;+*.. # &amp;quot; +$*,1*&amp;#x27;&amp;#x27; 3 &amp;amp;&amp;#x27;s/&amp;amp; &amp;amp;,,*&amp;#x27;&amp;amp;/)s&amp;amp;/s3&amp;amp;02%(&amp;amp; s2/1s &amp;amp;&amp;#x27;&amp;amp;,%$,1 $,% &amp;amp;&amp;#x27;&amp;amp;,%$,1,1&amp;amp;/3&amp;amp;,s/ ,%CAB/7&amp;lt;7&amp;lt;5B63&amp;#x27;%3&amp;gt;/@B;3&amp;lt;B=4=;;3@13NA47&amp;lt;/:A1=&amp;gt;3@C:7&amp;lt;5B6/B13@B/7&amp;lt; 3&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;3AAC16/A6=&amp;lt;5?7&amp;lt;5$/B=NA$ %3&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;3A/@3&amp;lt;=B7&amp;lt;1:C2327&amp;lt;B63 /&amp;lt;B72C;&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;5/&amp;lt;21=C&amp;lt;B3@D/7:7&amp;lt;52CBG=@23@A=&amp;lt;13@B/7&amp;lt;D3@B71/:A6/4B3&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;3A 03BE33&amp;lt;11/&amp;lt;2C&amp;gt;B= 11/&amp;lt;2&amp;gt;/@BAB63@3=44@=;B63#3=&amp;gt;:3NA$3&amp;gt;C0:71=4 67&amp;lt;/s /B32&amp;quot;1B=03@ @7BB&amp;lt;3G$#=E3::7H03B6$3D7&amp;lt;A=&amp;lt;:3F/&amp;lt;23@3GA3@=F$=B6A167:2 #=4)/A67&amp;lt;5B=&amp;lt;4=@#:/7&amp;lt;B744+6387/&amp;lt;5;3@7AC&amp;lt;&amp;amp;316&amp;lt;=:=5G=B2 :/C27/C@933&amp;gt;CBG7@31B=@/&amp;lt;2G:3%319@716&amp;amp;@7/:BB=@&amp;lt;3G =;;3@17/:7B75/B7=&amp;lt;@/&amp;lt;167D7:7D7A7=&amp;lt;&amp;#x27;%3&amp;gt;/@B;3&amp;lt;B=4CAB713=4 )/A67&amp;lt;5B=&amp;lt;4=@343&amp;lt;2/&amp;lt;B&amp;#x27;&amp;lt;7B32%B/B3A)7B6B63;=&amp;lt;B630@734E3@3 @7/&amp;lt; =G&amp;lt;B=&amp;lt;#@7&amp;lt;17&amp;gt;/:3&amp;gt;CBGAA7AB/&amp;lt;BBB=@&amp;lt;3G3&amp;lt;3@/:/&amp;lt;2#/B@717/ =C@B!= #/53 1/@B6G7@31B=@&amp;quot;41=C&amp;lt;A3:=&amp;lt;B630@734E/A=&amp;lt;+/16/@G=@03ABB=@&amp;lt;3G &amp;quot;44713=4B636734=C&amp;lt;A3:4=@&amp;amp;@/23&amp;lt;4=@13;3&amp;lt;B=;&amp;gt;:7/&amp;lt;13&amp;#x27;% 3&amp;gt;/@B;3&amp;lt;B=4=;;3@13=4)/A67&amp;lt;5B=&amp;lt; 6=3@=D3AC253&amp;amp;67A/1B7=&amp;lt;1=&amp;lt;13@&amp;lt;AB63&amp;#x27;%3&amp;gt;/@B;3&amp;lt;B=4 =;;3@13NAK=;;3@13L47&amp;lt;/:A1=&amp;gt;3@C:7&amp;lt;5B6/BB63$ %3&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;3 ;/&amp;lt;C4/1BC@320G6=&amp;lt;5?7&amp;lt;5$/B=&amp;amp;316&amp;lt;=:=5G=B2K6=&amp;lt;5?7&amp;lt;5$/B=LE/A =@757&amp;lt;/::G7&amp;lt;1:C2327&amp;lt;B63/&amp;lt;B72C;&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;5/&amp;lt;21=C&amp;lt;B3@D/7:7&amp;lt;52CBG=@23@A=&amp;lt;13@B/7&amp;lt; D3@B71/:A6/4B3&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;3A03BE33&amp;lt;11/&amp;lt;2C&amp;gt;B= 11/&amp;lt;2&amp;gt;/@BAB63@3=44@=;67&amp;lt;/ :/B3@16/&amp;lt;532=&amp;lt;@3;/&amp;lt;23@B/7&amp;lt;(3@B71/:%6/4B&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;3A3BE33&amp;lt;11/&amp;lt;2&amp;#x27;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;= 11/&amp;lt;2#/@BA&amp;amp;63@3=44@=;B63#3=&amp;gt;:3NA$3&amp;gt;C0:71=467&amp;lt;/%1=&amp;gt;3$C:7&amp;lt;5=&amp;lt; =274732(3@B71/:%6/4B&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;3A31 K7&amp;lt;/:%1=&amp;gt;3$C:7&amp;lt;5L#$ A333@B/7&amp;lt;(3@B71/:%6/4B&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;3A3BE33&amp;lt;11/&amp;lt;2&amp;#x27;&amp;gt;B= 11/&amp;lt;2#/@BA &amp;amp;63@3=4@=;B63#3=&amp;gt;:3NA$3&amp;gt;C0:71=467&amp;lt;/32$35 /G /&amp;lt;B72C;&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;5/&amp;lt;21=C&amp;lt;B3@D/7:7&amp;lt;52CBG=@23@AK&amp;quot;@23@AL 34=@3B63=C@B/@3=;;3@13NA7&amp;lt;/:$3AC:BA=4$323B3@;7&amp;lt;/B7=&amp;lt;#C@AC/&amp;lt;B B==C@B$3;/&amp;lt;2K$3;/&amp;lt;2$323B3@;7&amp;lt;/B7=&amp;lt;L!= E6716@3D3@A32 =;;3@13NA=@757&amp;lt;/:A1=&amp;gt;3@C:7&amp;lt;5/&amp;lt;223B3@;7&amp;lt;32=&amp;lt;@3;/&amp;lt;2B6/BB633&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;3E/A =CB=4A1=&amp;gt;3#:/7&amp;lt;B744+6387/&amp;lt;5;3@7AC&amp;lt;&amp;amp;316&amp;lt;=:=5G=B2K#:/7&amp;lt;B744L=@ K+6387/&amp;lt;5;3@7AC&amp;lt;L/&amp;lt;2343&amp;lt;2/&amp;lt;B&amp;#x27;&amp;lt;7B32%B/B3AKB63=D3@&amp;lt;;3&amp;lt;BL=@ 7B/B7=&amp;lt;AB=B63/2;7&amp;lt;7AB@/B7D3@31=@2@34:31BB63&amp;gt;C0:71@31=@2K#$L2=1C;3&amp;lt;B &amp;lt;C;03@A47:327&amp;lt;B67A1/A3!= =C@B!= #/53 K343&amp;lt;2/&amp;lt;BL47:32B637@1=;;3&amp;lt;BA7&amp;lt;AC&amp;gt;&amp;gt;=@B#:NA;BA=;;3@13NA7&amp;lt;/: $323B3@;7&amp;lt;/B7=&amp;lt;#C@AC/&amp;lt;BB=$3;/&amp;lt;2&amp;quot;@23@K#:NA@L!= 34NA ;BA%C&amp;gt;&amp;gt;$3;/&amp;lt;2$323B3@;7&amp;lt;/B7=&amp;lt;K34NA@L!= !=1=;;3&amp;lt;BA 7&amp;lt;=&amp;gt;&amp;gt;=A7B7=&amp;lt;E3@347:32 =@B63@3/A=&amp;lt;A27A1CAA3203:=EB63=C@BACAB/7&amp;lt;A=;;3@13NA$3;/&amp;lt;2 $323B3@;7&amp;lt;/B7=&amp;lt; &amp;amp;63=C@B&amp;gt;@3AC;3A4/;7:7/@7BGE7B6B63C&amp;lt;23@:G7&amp;lt;54/1BA/&amp;lt;2&amp;gt;@=132C@/: 67AB=@G=4B67A1/A3%33+6387/&amp;lt;5;3@7AC&amp;lt;&amp;amp;316=D&amp;#x27;&amp;lt;7B32%B/B3AK+6387/&amp;lt;5 ;3@7AC&amp;lt;L &amp;amp;..%C&amp;gt;&amp;gt; 2 &amp;lt;B637&amp;lt;/:%1=&amp;gt;3$C:7&amp;lt;5=;;3@1323B3@;7&amp;lt;32B6/B6=&amp;lt;5?7&amp;lt;5$/B=NA $ %3&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;3AE3@3;=274732D3@B71/:A6/4B3&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;3A7&amp;lt;1:C2327&amp;lt;B63A1=&amp;gt;3=4B63 &amp;quot;@23@A%337&amp;lt;/:%1=&amp;gt;3$C:7&amp;lt;5=;;3@133F/;7&amp;lt;329 A=C@13A7&amp;lt;1:C27&amp;lt;5 B63#3B7B7=&amp;lt;B63C&amp;lt;23@:G7&amp;lt;5&amp;amp;$3&amp;gt;=@B/&amp;lt;2/@B71:3A4@=;)797&amp;gt;327//&amp;lt;2 #3&amp;lt;&amp;lt;AG:D/&amp;lt;7/%B/B3&amp;#x27;&amp;lt;7D3@A7BGB=AC&amp;gt;&amp;gt;=@B7BA23B3@;7&amp;lt;/B7=&amp;lt;B6/BB63;=274732 D3@B71/:A6/4B3&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;36/2/D3@B71/:=@73&amp;lt;B/B7=&amp;lt;B6@=C567BAD3@B71/:K&amp;gt;=E3@B/93=44 A6/4BL/&amp;lt;24=::=E32B63&amp;gt;@7;/@GCA3=CB:7&amp;lt;327&amp;lt;B63A1=&amp;gt;3:/&amp;lt;5C/537&amp;lt;/:%1=&amp;gt;3 $C:7&amp;lt;5/BJ &amp;lt;+6387/&amp;lt;5;3@7AC&amp;lt;B63=C@B1=&amp;lt;1:C232B6/B=;;3@13NAA1=&amp;gt;3 23B3@;7&amp;lt;/B7=&amp;lt;E/A&amp;lt;37B63@AC&amp;gt;&amp;gt;=@B320GAC0AB/&amp;lt;B7/:3D723&amp;lt;13&amp;lt;=@7&amp;lt;/11=@2/&amp;lt;13 =C@B!= #/53 E7B6:/E031/CA3 B63A1=&amp;gt;3:/&amp;lt;5C/53=4B63&amp;quot;@23@A&amp;lt;37B63@A&amp;gt;3174732B6/B/ 53/@0=F1=&amp;lt;&amp;lt;31B32B=/A6/4BE/A&amp;gt;/@B=4B633&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;3&amp;lt;=@7&amp;lt;1:C232/&amp;lt;G:/&amp;lt;5C/53B6/B @3/A=&amp;lt;/0:GAC553AB32AC16/@3AC:B/&amp;lt;2=;;3@13C&amp;lt;:/E4C::G7&amp;lt;B3@&amp;gt;@3B32AC16 A7:3&amp;lt;13B=/AAC;3B6/BB633&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;3E/AE7B67&amp;lt;B63A1=&amp;gt;3=4B63&amp;quot;@23@A B63 )797&amp;gt;327//@B71:3AB6/B=;;3@1317B32E3@3&amp;lt;=B@3:7/0:3=@AC447173&amp;lt;B3D723&amp;lt;134=@ B632347&amp;lt;7B7=&amp;lt;=4/K&amp;gt;=E3@B/93=44A6/4BL/&amp;lt;2 B63#3&amp;lt;&amp;lt;AG:D/&amp;lt;7/%B/B3 &amp;#x27;&amp;lt;7D3@A7BG/@B71:3=&amp;lt;E6716=;;3@13@3:732272&amp;lt;=B&amp;gt;@=D723AC447173&amp;lt;B3D723&amp;lt;B7/@G AC&amp;gt;&amp;gt;=@B4=@B63A1=&amp;gt;323B3@;7&amp;lt;/B7=&amp;lt;+6387/&amp;lt;5;3@7AC&amp;lt;%C&amp;gt;&amp;gt; 2/B J &amp;lt;7BA$3;/&amp;lt;2$323B3@;7&amp;lt;/B7=&amp;lt;=;;3@1323B3@;7&amp;lt;32B6/B13@B/7&amp;lt;3&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;3A AC16/AB636=&amp;lt;5?7&amp;lt;5$/B=NA$ %3&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;3/@3&amp;lt;=B1=D3@320GB63A1=&amp;gt;3=4B63 &amp;quot;@23@A$3;/&amp;lt;2$323B3@;7&amp;lt;/B7=&amp;lt;/B ! &amp;amp;63=C@B6/A8C@7A271B7=&amp;lt;&amp;gt;C@AC/&amp;lt;BB=%31B7=&amp;lt; / D7=4B63 &amp;amp;/@7441B=4 /A/;3&amp;lt;232 &amp;#x27;%I // D7/&amp;lt;2 &amp;#x27;% I 1&amp;amp;63=C@BE7::6=:2C&amp;lt;:/E4C:/&amp;lt;G23B3@;7&amp;lt;/B7=&amp;lt;4=C&amp;lt;2B=03 C&amp;lt;AC&amp;gt;&amp;gt;=@B320GAC0AB/&amp;lt;B7/:3D723&amp;lt;13=&amp;lt;B63@31=@2=@=B63@E7A3&amp;lt;=B7&amp;lt;/11=@2/&amp;lt;13 E7B6:/E &amp;#x27;%I /0 7 =B6#:/7&amp;lt;B744/&amp;lt;2343&amp;lt;2/&amp;lt;BA339B=ACAB/7&amp;lt;B63$3;/&amp;lt;2$323B3@;7&amp;lt;/B7=&amp;lt; =C@B!= #/53 0CB#:/7&amp;lt;B74427A/5@33AE7B6K=;;3@13NA;7A16/@/1B3@7H/B7=&amp;lt;=4B63$ % 3&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;3/A/M;=274732D3@B71/:A6/4B3&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;3NL%33#:NA@/B J 34NA@/B J =;;3@137&amp;lt;7BA$3;/&amp;lt;2$323B3@;7&amp;lt;/B7=&amp;lt;23B3@;7&amp;lt;32B6/B6=&amp;lt;5?7&amp;lt;5 $/B=NA$ %3&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;3E/A&amp;lt;=B1=D3@320GB63A1=&amp;gt;3=4B63&amp;quot;@23@A0CB27A/5@332 E7B6B63=C@BB6/B B63:/&amp;lt;5C/53=4B63A1=&amp;gt;3;CABA&amp;gt;3174GB6/B/53/@0=F1=&amp;lt;&amp;lt;31B32B= /A6/4B7A&amp;gt;/@B=4/&amp;lt;3&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;37&amp;lt;=@23@4=@=;;3@13B=47&amp;lt;2B6/BAC16/ 1=&amp;lt;475C@/B7=&amp;lt;7A/&amp;lt;7&amp;lt;B35@/B32&amp;gt;/@B=4/D3@B71/:A6/4B3&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;3/&amp;lt;2 =;;3@13;/G&amp;lt;=B@3:G=&amp;lt;/1/23;71&amp;gt;C0:71/B7=&amp;lt;AB6/BA&amp;gt;3/9B=3&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;3 AB@C1BC@3AC16/AB63/@B71:34@=;#3&amp;lt;&amp;lt;,AG:D/&amp;lt;7/s%B/B3&amp;#x27;&amp;lt;7D3@A7BG=&amp;lt; E6716 =;;3@13 @3:732 7&amp;lt; B63 7&amp;lt;/: %1=&amp;gt;3 $C:7&amp;lt;5 3D3&amp;lt; 74 AC16 A=C@13A /@3 &amp;lt;=B A&amp;gt;317471 B= :/E&amp;lt; ;=E3@A 3A&amp;gt;317/::G 57D3&amp;lt; B6/B B63 &amp;gt;@=2C1BA1=D3@320GB63&amp;quot;@23@A/@3&amp;lt;=B:7;7B32B=:/E&amp;lt;;=E3@3&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;3A $3;/&amp;lt;2$323B3@;7&amp;lt;/B7=&amp;lt;/B =;;3@13/:A=AB/B32B6/B7BE=C:2&amp;lt;=B16/&amp;lt;53B6316/@/1B3@7H/B7=&amp;lt;=4 6=&amp;lt;5?7&amp;lt;5$/B=NA$ %3&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;3/A/;=274732D3@B71/:A6/4B3&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;3E63&amp;lt; @343@@7&amp;lt;5B=7BA&amp;gt;@7=@23B3@;7&amp;lt;/B7=&amp;lt;7&amp;lt;B637&amp;lt;/:%1=&amp;gt;3$C:7&amp;lt;52/B =;;3@13/AA3@B32B6/B4=@B63&amp;gt;C@&amp;gt;=A3A=4B63$3;/&amp;lt;2$323B3@;7&amp;lt;/B7=&amp;lt; 6=E3D3@7B@343@@32B=B63&amp;gt;@=2C1B/B7AAC3/AK13@B/7&amp;lt;3&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;3AAC16/A 6=&amp;lt;5?7&amp;lt;5$/B=NA,$ %sL2#:/7&amp;lt;B744/5@33AE7B6=;;3@13NA&amp;lt;3E 23B3@;7&amp;lt;/B7=&amp;lt;7&amp;lt;B63$3;/&amp;lt;2$323B3@;7&amp;lt;/B7=&amp;lt;B6/B6=&amp;lt;5?7&amp;lt;5$/B=NA$ %3&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;3/&amp;lt;2A7;7:/@3&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;3AE3@33F1:C2324@=;B63A1=&amp;gt;3=4B63&amp;quot;@23@A =C@B!= #/53 0CB1=&amp;lt;B3ABA=;;3@13NA23A1@7&amp;gt;B7=&amp;lt;=4B636=&amp;lt;5?7&amp;lt;5$/B=$ %3&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;3 /A/K;=274732D3@B71/:A6/4B3&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;3L=@K/&amp;lt;3&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;3E7B6/6=@7H=&amp;lt;B/: 1@/&amp;lt;9A6/4B1=&amp;lt;&amp;lt;31B32B=/@756B/&amp;lt;5:353/@0=FE6716@327@31BA&amp;gt;=E3@4@=; B636=@7H=&amp;lt;B/:1@/&amp;lt;9A6/4BB=/MD3@B71/:&amp;gt;=E3@B/93=44A6/4BB6/B&amp;gt;=E3@AB63 0:/23A=4/:/E&amp;lt;;=E3@NL/&amp;lt;2B6/BKB63@756B/&amp;lt;5:353/@0=F7A&amp;gt;/@B=4B63 6=&amp;lt;5?7&amp;lt;5$/B=$ %3&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;3L#:NA@/B 343&amp;lt;2/&amp;lt;B/AA3@BAB6/B=;;3@13NA16=713=4B3@;7&amp;lt;=:=5G2=3A&amp;lt;=B C&amp;lt;23@;7&amp;lt;37BA23B3@;7&amp;lt;/B7=&amp;lt;B6/BB63$ %3&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;3E/A=CBA723B63A1=&amp;gt;3=4B63 &amp;quot;@23@A34NA@/B 343&amp;lt;2/&amp;lt;BAB/B3AB6/B=;;3@131:/@74732B6/B7BACA3=4 :/&amp;lt;5C/53AC16/AK;=274732D3@B71/:A6/4B3&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;3L7&amp;lt;13@B/7&amp;lt;/@3/AE/A7&amp;lt;B3&amp;lt;232B= 3&amp;lt;AC@3/2;7&amp;lt;7AB@/B7D31=&amp;lt;A7AB3&amp;lt;1GE7B6B63C&amp;lt;23@:G7&amp;lt;5A1=&amp;gt;37&amp;lt;?C7@G/&amp;lt;247&amp;lt;/: A1=&amp;gt;3@C:7&amp;lt;52/B &amp;amp;63=C@B6=:2AB6/B=;;3@131=;&amp;gt;:732E7B6B63=C@BNA@3;/&amp;lt;2=@23@7&amp;lt; 23B3@;7&amp;lt;7&amp;lt;5B6/B6=&amp;lt;5?7&amp;lt;5$/B=NA$ %3&amp;lt;57&amp;lt;3E/A&amp;lt;=B1=D3@320GB63A1=&amp;gt;3 =4B63&amp;quot;@23@A =@B634=@35=7&amp;lt;5@3/A=&amp;lt;AB63=C@BACAB/7&amp;lt;A=;;3@13NA$3;/&amp;lt;2 $323B3@;7&amp;lt;/B7=&amp;lt;/AAC&amp;gt;&amp;gt;=@B320GAC0AB/&amp;lt;B7/:3D723&amp;lt;13/&amp;lt;27&amp;lt;/11=@2/&amp;lt;13E7B6:/E 11=@27&amp;lt;5:G7B7A63@30G B6/BB63$3;/&amp;lt;2$323B3@;7&amp;lt;/B7=&amp;lt;7AACAB/7&amp;lt;32 =C@B!= #/53 C25;3&amp;lt;BE7::033&amp;lt;B3@32/11=@27&amp;lt;5:G A3&amp;lt;&amp;lt;743@6=3@=D3A 3&amp;lt;&amp;lt;743@6=3@=D3AC253 /B32&amp;quot;1B=03@ !3E*=@9!3E*=@9 23-00011 United States Court of International Trade cit Ct. Intl. Trade Zhejiang Amerisun Tech. Co. v. United States Choe-Groves 2 October 2024 2024 CIT 104 1581(c) Published e032ef5b5621e1ec04a7859faeff102f7c2b908a&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt; &lt;a href="/opinion/10128897/zhejiang-amerisun-tech-co-v-united-states/"&gt;Original document&lt;/a&gt; </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2024/10/02/zhejiang_amerisun_tech._co._v._united_states.pdf" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="application/pdf"/><category term="Precedential"/></entry><entry><title>Chandan Steel Ltd. v. United States</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10129025/chandan-steel-ltd-v-united-states/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-10-02T00:00:00-07:00</published><author><name>United States Court of International Trade</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10129025/chandan-steel-ltd-v-united-states/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;p&gt;Slip Op. No. 24-105 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE CHANDAN STEEL LIMITED, Plaintiff, Before: Timothy C. Stanceu, Judge v. Court No. 21-00540 UNITED STATES, Defendant. OPINION [Denying relief on plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s previous decision sustaining an antidumping duty rate of 145.25%] Dated: October 2, 2024 Peter J. Koenig, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, of Washington, D.C., for plaintiff Chandan Steel Limited. Geoffrey M. Long, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C., for defendant. With him on the response were Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy, Director, and Tara K. Hogan, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the response were Collin T. Mathias, Trial Attorney, and Ashlande Gelin, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement &amp;amp; Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, D.C. Stanceu, Judge: The court previously sustained an antidumping duty rate of 145.25% ad valorem assigned by the International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce” or the “Department”) to plaintiff Chandan Steel Limited (“Chandan”) in the final results of a review of an antidumping duty Court No. 21-00540 Page 2 order. Kisaan Die Tech Private, Ltd. v. United States, 47 CIT __, 665 F. Supp. 3d 1364 (2023) (“Kisaan Die Tech”). Chandan has filed a “Motion for Reconsideration” of the court’s decision, arguing that the court did not address certain arguments Chandan made in the litigation. Chandan Rule 59(a)/(e) and 60 Mot. for Reconsideration (Jan. 8, 2024), ECF No. 63 (“Mot. for Reconsideration”). The court will deny relief on the Motion for Reconsideration and enter judgment in favor of defendant. I. BACKGROUND Background is set forth in the court’s prior opinion and is summarized briefly herein. See Kisaan Die Tech, 47 CIT at __, 665 F. Supp. 3d at 1367–68. 1 Chandan contested the published final determination (the “Final Results”) Commerce issued to conclude the first periodic administrative review (“first review”) of an antidumping duty order on stainless steel flanges from India. See Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2018–2019, 86 Fed. Reg. 47,619 (Int’l Trade Admin. Aug. 26, 2021) (“Final Results”); Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Antidumping 1 This action has been deconsolidated from Kisaan Die Tech et al. v. United States, Court No. 21-00512. Order of Judgment by Stipulation, Kisaan Die Tech et al. v. United States, Court No. 21-512 (Sept. 30, 2024), ECF No. 85. All filings in Court No. 21-00512 pertinent to Court No. 21-00540 have been incorporated by reference on the docket of this action. Order of Judgment by Stipulation (Sept. 30, 2024), Chandan Steel Limited v. United States, Court No. 21-00540, ECF No. 25. All ECF citations herein refer to the filings on the docket of Court No. 21-00512, unless otherwise indicated. Court No. 21-00540 Page 3 Duty Administrative Review; 2018–2019 (Int’l Trade Admin. Aug. 20, 2021), P.R. Doc. 169 (“Final I&amp;amp;D Mem.”). 2 In the first …&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt; &lt;a href="/opinion/10129025/chandan-steel-ltd-v-united-states/"&gt;Original document&lt;/a&gt; </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2024/10/02/chandan_steel_ltd._v._united_states.pdf" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="application/pdf"/><category term="Precedential"/></entry><entry><title>Fusong Jinlong Wooden Grp. Co. v. United States</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10120966/fusong-jinlong-wooden-grp-co-v-united-states/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-09-18T00:00:00-07:00</published><author><name>United States Court of International Trade</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10120966/fusong-jinlong-wooden-grp-co-v-united-states/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;p&gt;Slip Op. 24–103 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE : FUSONG JINLONG WOODEN GROUP CO., : LTD. ET AL., : : Plaintiffs, : : YIHUA LIFESTYLE TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. : ET AL., : : Consolidated Plaintiffs, : : and : : Before: Richard K. Eaton, Judge LUMBER LIQUIDATORS SERVICES, LLC : ET AL., : Consol. Court No. 19-00144 : Plaintiff-Intervenors, : v. : : UNITED STATES, : : Defendant, : : and : : AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS OF : MULTILAYERED WOOD FLOORING, : : Defendant-Intervenor. : : OPINION [U.S. Department of Commerce’s remand results are sustained.] Dated: September 18, 2024 Alexandra H. Salzman, Gregory S. Menegaz, and J. Kevin Horgan, deKieffer &amp;amp; Horgan, PLLC, of Washington, D.C., for Plaintiffs Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co., Ltd., Fusong Qianqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd., and Dalian Qianqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd. Consol. Court No. 19-00144 Page 2 Daniel M. Witkowski and Matthew R. Nicely, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer &amp;amp; Feld, LLP, of Washington, D.C. for Consolidated Plaintiff Sino-Maple (JiangSu) Co., Ltd. With them on the brief was Dean A. Pinkert, Hughes, Hubbard &amp;amp; Reed LLP, of Washington, D.C. David J. Craven, Craven Trade Law LLC, of Chicago, IL, for Consolidated Plaintiffs A&amp;amp;W (Shanghai) Woods Co., Ltd., Dun Hua Sen Tai Wood Co., Ltd., Dunhua Shengda Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Hangzhou Hanje Tec Co., Ltd., Hunchun Xingjia Wooden Flooring Inc., Huzhou Chenghang Wood Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Fuerjia Wooden Co., Ltd. Adams C. Lee, Harris Sliwoski LLP, of Seattle, WA, for Consolidated Plaintiff Zhejiang Dadongwu GreenHome Wood Co., Ltd. Lizbeth R. Levinson, Ronald M. Wisla, and Brittney R. Powell, Fox Rothschild LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Consolidated Plaintiffs Baishan Huafeng Wooden Product Co., Ltd., Cohesion Trading Limited, Galleher Corp., Galleher, LLC, Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co., Ltd., Metropolitan Hardwood Floors, Inc., MGI International, Mobetta Trading Limited, Nakahiro Jyou Sei Furniture (Dalian) Co., Ltd., Shenyang Haobainian Wooden Co. Ltd., and Wego International Floors LLC. Kavita Mohan, Elaine F. Wang, Francis J. Sailer, Ned H. Marshak, and Jordan C. Kahn, Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman &amp;amp; Klestadt LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Consolidated Plaintiff Scholar Home (Shanghai) New Material Co., Ltd. Sarah M. Wyss and Jill A. Cramer, Mowry &amp;amp; Grimson, PLLC, of Washington, D.C., for Consolidated Plaintiff Yihua Lifestyle Technology Co., Ltd.1 Gregory S. McCue and Adriana M. Campos-Korn, Steptoe LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Consolidated Plaintiffs Evolutions Flooring, Inc., Linyi Anying Wood Co., Ltd., Linyi Youyou Wood Co., Ltd., and Struxtur, Inc. Mark R. Ludwikowski, Clark Hill PLC, of Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff-Intervenors Benxi Wood Company, Dalian Jiahong Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Dalian Kemian Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Dongtai Fuan Universal Dynamics, LLC, HaiLin LinJing Wooden Products Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Guyu International Trading Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Mingle Flooring Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Simba Flooring Co., Ltd., Jiashan HuiJiaLe Decoration Material Co., Ltd., Kemian Wood Industry (Kunshan) Co., Ltd., Lumber Liquidators Services, LLC, Suzhou Dongda Wood Co., Ltd., and Tongxiang Jisheng Import and Export Co., Ltd. Brendan D. Jordan, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, …&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt; &lt;a href="/opinion/10120966/fusong-jinlong-wooden-grp-co-v-united-states/"&gt;Original document&lt;/a&gt; </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2024/09/18/fusong_jinlong_wooden_grp._co._v._united_states.pdf" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="application/pdf"/><category term="Precedential"/></entry><entry><title>Officine Tecnosider Srl v. United States</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10119833/officine-tecnosider-srl-v-united-states/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-09-17T00:00:00-07:00</published><author><name>United States Court of International Trade</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10119833/officine-tecnosider-srl-v-united-states/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;p&gt;Slip Op. No. 24-102 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE OFFICINE TECNOSIDER SRL, Plaintiff, v. Before: Stephen Alexander Vaden, UNITED STATES, Judge Defendant, Court No. 1:23-cv-00001 (SAV) and NUCOR CORPORATION Defendant-Intervenor. OPINION [Remanding Commerce’s Remand Determination.] Dated: September 17, 2024 Pierce J. Lee, Crowell &amp;amp; Moring LLP, of Washington, DC, for Plaintiff Officine Technosider Srl. With him on the brief was Daniel J. Cannistra. Augustus J. Golden, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for Defendant United States. With him on the brief were Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Tara K. Hogan, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, and Ashlande Gelin, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce. Stephanie M. Bell, Wiley Rein LLP, of Washington, DC, for Defendant-Intervenor Nucor Corporation. With her on the brief were Alan H. Price, Christopher B. Weld, and Jeffrey O. Frank. Court No. 1:23-cv-00001 (SAV) Page 2 Vaden, Judge: Before the Court is the U.S. Department of Commerce’s (Commerce) remand determination for the 2020–21 administrative review of the antidumping order for steel plate from Italy. At issue is whether Commerce should depart from its normal annual average cost methodology and instead use an alternative quarterly cost methodology for Plaintiff Officine Technosider SRL (Officine). Commerce sought a voluntary remand to reconsider if it should apply the alternative methodology. On remand, Commerce compared quarterly trends in sales for the U.S. and home markets with the cost of manufacturing for certain control numbers and determined that using the alternative methodology is warranted. However, all U.S. sales took place in one quarter, making it difficult to decipher a trend for U.S. sales prices. Only one control number shared between the U.S. and home markets is also among the five highest-selling control numbers in both markets — further complicating Commerce’s task. And a past Commerce decision points to another potential way to analyze the data. Because Commerce failed to properly respond to these shortcomings, its decision lacks substantial evidentiary support and will be REMANDED for further explanation. BACKGROUND I. Procedural Background This case concerns a challenge to Commerce’s Final Results in the administrative review of the antidumping order on certain carbon and alloy steel cut- to-length plate from Italy, covering entries from May 1, 2020, through April 30, 2021 Court No. 1:23-cv-00001 (SAV) Page 3 (the Period of Review). See Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-To-Length Plate from Italy: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2020-2021, 87 Fed. Reg. 75,219 (Dep’t of Com. Dec. 8, 2022) (Final Results), and accompanying Issues and Decisions Mem. (IDM), J.A. at 2,305, ECF No. 44. At issue is whether Commerce should use its normal annual weighted-average cost methodology for the entire Period of Review or an alternative methodology, which examines costs in shorter periods to minimize potential distortions, known as the quarterly cost methodology.1 Officine is an Italian producer and exporter of …&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt; &lt;a href="/opinion/10119833/officine-tecnosider-srl-v-united-states/"&gt;Original document&lt;/a&gt; </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2024/09/17/officine_tecnosider_srl_v._united_states.pdf" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="application/pdf"/><category term="Precedential"/></entry></feed>