Importer Asks CIT for Ruling on Deposition Notices to Government Agencies
Importer G&H Diversified Manufacturing on Dec. 19 asked the Court of International Trade for a ruling on a pair of deposition notices directed at CBP and the Bureau of Industry and Security in its lawsuit seeking a Section 232 duty exclusion for its steel tube imports (G&H Diversified Manufacturing v. United States, CIT # 22-00130).
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.
G&H received a Section 232 exclusion from BIS for its steel tube imports classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7304.29.6115. However, upon entry, CBP assessed the duties on the importer's products and classified the goods under subheading 7304.59.8020. The importer unsuccessfully protested the move, then filed suit at the Court of International Trade to argue that CBP failed to consider that it already found the Section 232 exclusion to apply to the company's products (see 2412190059).
Discovery began and was delayed due to the federal government shutdown. The importer said after the shutdown ended, it noticed depositions under CIT Rule 30(b)(6) naming BIS and CBP. The U.S. objected, claiming via email it would only respond to one Rule 30(b)(6) notice, and that the notice must only name the U.S. as the party to be deposed, rather than two government agencies.
As a result of the government's response, G&H moved the trade court for a ruling on its two deposition notices, since Rule 30(b)(6) is the "principal mechanism for deposing entities, including government agencies."
The importer argued that Rule 30(b)(6) allows deposition notices directed to specific federal agencies as opposed to the U.S. generally, since the agencies have specific knowledge relevant to the case, and that agency-specific notices are "necessary where multiple agencies possess distinct knowledge."