The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 9 issued mandates in two cases: one from importer Nutricia North America on the classification of its medical food imports (see 2511170047) and the other in a countervailing duty case from exporter Kaptan Demir on the decision not to attribute subsidies provided to Kaptan's input supplier to Kaptan itself (see 2511170018) (Nutricia North America v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1436) (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1431).
The government moved to stay various cases seeking refunds of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act pending the court's resolution of the government's "motion for extended case management procedures" filed in AGS Company Automotive Solutions v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, one of the lead cases on refunds.
Surety company Aegis Security Insurance filed a brief on Jan. 9 providing additional context for its opposition to the government's third motion for an extension of time to file its opening brief in a suit concerning unpaid duties against the surety despite the fact that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted the extension request (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance, Fed. Cir. # 25-2009).
The U.S. opened a customs penalty suit on Jan. 8 against importers Skyline International and Skyline Brands, along with their owner Zainulabedin Subhani, alleging that the three defendants undervalued their entries of household merchandise. The government is seeking a penalty totaling over $3.4 million for the defendants' alleged fraud along with a judgment of over $447,000, which represents the duties avoided by the defendants (United States v. Skyline International, CIT # 26-00295).
The Commerce Department reasonably used the Thailand Board of Investment's Cost of Doing Business in Thailand 2023 report as a benchmark to determine the benefit for Vietnam's "Exemption or Reduction of Rents for Encouraged Industries" subsidy, the Court of International Trade held on Jan. 8.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 8 sustained the Commerce Department's finding on remand that exporter Co May Import-Export Company didn't have a bona fide sale of subject merchandise during the review period of a new shipper review. Judge Jane Restani said the decision complies with the court's remand order.
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 8 sustained the Commerce Department's overhead ratio calculations following a remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the agency's treatment of energy and manufacturing overhead costs in the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 8 held that domestic sales, "in certain circumstances, may qualify as the basis for using transaction value as an appraisement method." CAFC Judges Sharon Prost and Tiffany Cunningham, along with U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware Judge Richard Andrews, held that the Court of International Trade got it right when it said the transaction value statute, 19 U.S.C. 1401a(b)(1), doesn't require an "international sale or a sale abroad to have occurred for a sale of merchandise to be considered as a sale 'for exportation to the United States.'"