Trade-Related Court Cases Filed for Week of Dec. 5-11
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 5-11:
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.
U.S. government, seeking $3,760,000 in penalties and $379,665.83 in unpaid duties from NYWL Enterprises and its chief executive officer, Dian He, for fraudulent violations of 19 USC 1592. The government alleges NYWL and He intentionally misclassified entries of coaxial cable to save on duties. #16-00257. Filed Dec. 6.
Hartford Fire Insurance, challenging CBP claims on bonds covering entries of garlic. Hartford says the claims should be canceled because the bonds had errors. #16-00258. Filed Dec. 6.
Haixing Jingmei Chemical Products Sales Co., Ltd., challenging the Commerce Department's decision to end a new shipper review on calcium hypochlorite from China without assigning the company its own antidumping duty rate. #16-00259. Filed Dec. 7.
Harmoni International Spice, Inc., seeking release of entries of peeled garlic that were deemed excluded by CBP under a forced labor withhold release order (WRO). #16-00260. Filed Dec. 7.
​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 Dec. 5-11:
GEO Specialty Chemicals, appealing a CIT decision issued in October that upheld the Commerce Department's decision to end an administrative review on glycine from China for Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry Co., Ltd. #17-1312. Opened Dec. 6.
Imperial Sugar Company, appealing a CIT decision from October that upheld the agreement suspending antidumping and countervailing duties on sugar from Mexico. Imperial Sugar had argued the agreement hurt it because it uses imported Mexican sugar as an input in its domestic operations, but CIT held that the International Trade Commission only needs to find that suspension agreements eliminate injury caused to domestic industry by dumping and illegal subsidization, and does not need to account for any negative effects caused by the suspension agreement itself (see 1610280019). #17-1320. Opened Dec. 6.
U.S. government, appealing CIT's ruling in October that CBP should not have suspended liquidation of Sunpreme’s entries of hybrid solar cells based on its own interpretation of the ambiguous scope language before Commerce clarified it in a scope ruling, and that Commerce cannot assess AD/CV duties on the improperly suspended entries once it found Sunpreme’s hybrid cells were covered by the scope (see 1610200024). #17-1338. Opened Dec. 9.