Trade-Related Court Cases Filed for Week of Jan. 26 - Feb. 1
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 26 - Feb. 1:
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
RZBC Group challenging the final results of the countervailing duty administrative review on citric acid from China entered in 2012. #15-00022. Filed Jan. 29.
Guangzhou Jangho Curtain Wall System Engineering Co. Ltd. and Jangho Curtain Wall Hong Kong Ltd. challenging the final results of the antidumping duty administrative review on aluminum extrusions from China for entries in 2012-13. #15-00023. Filed Jan. 29.
Guangzhou Jangho Curtain Wall System Engineering Co. Ltd. and Jangho Curtain Wall Hong Kong Ltd. challenging the final results of the countervailing duty administrative review on aluminum extrusions from China for entries in 2012. #15-00024. Filed Jan. 29.
Hartford Fire Insurance Company challenging CBP claims on bonds issued by Hartford because they contain facial defects and the entries had already deemed liquidated. #15-00025. Filed Jan. 30.
Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee challenging the final results of the antidumping duty administrative review on aluminum extrusions from China for entries in 2012-13. #15-00026. Filed Jan. 30.
Heze Guayi Chemical Co., Ltd. challenging the final results of the antidumping duty administrative review on chlorinated isocyanurates from China for entries in 2012-13. #15-00027. Filed Jan. 30.
Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee challenging the final results of the countervailing duty administrative review on aluminum extrusions from China for entries in 2012. #15-00028. Filed Jan. 30.
Jedwards International, Inc. on the classification of fish oil ethyl ester. CBP classified the merchandise under heading 3824.90 (4.6%). Jedwards says it should have instead been classified under subheading 1516.10.0000 (7¢/kg), 1517.90.9090 (8.8¢/kg) or 3003.90.0000 (free). #15-00029. Filed Jan. 30.
General Electric Energy Management challenging CBP's denial of post-entry Generalized System of Preferences claims as non-protestable. #15-00030. Filed Jan. 30.
Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co., Ltd. challenging the final results of the antidumping duty administrative review on aluminum extrusions from China for entries in 2012-13. #15-00031. Filed Jan. 30.
Appeals of CIT Decisions
The following appeals of Court of International Trade decisions were filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit during the week of Jan. 26 - Feb. 1:
Albemarle Corporation, Ninxia Guagui, Calgon Carbon Corporation, Norit Americas, and the U.S. government challenging the final results on remand of an antidumping duty administrative review on activated carbon from China for entries in 2009-10. #15-1288, 15-1289, and 15-1290.
Rubbermaid Commercial Products challenging a CIT ruling in favor of CBP on the classification of fuel-cell powered dispensers for public restrooms (see 1412020056). Technical Concepts, which is now owned by Rubbermaid, imported TCell fragrance dispensers and SaniCell toilet cleaner dispensers. It argued the hygiene equipment should be classified as machinery in chapter 84 instead of electrical machinery under chapter 85, because it neither takes in nor puts out electricity. But CIT affirmed CBP’s reliquidation of the dispensers as electrical machinery because, through their fuel cells, they “depend on electricity” to operate.