Importer Blue Sky the Color of Imagination will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last week's Court of International Trade decision regarding the classification of the company's notebooks with calendars (see 2404100052), the notice of appeal said. In its decision, the trade court classified the goods under its own preferred Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading, 4820.10.20.10, rather than one of the subheadings advanced by Blue Sky or CBP. The judge said the court should prefer readings of the HTS that establish "conformity" across both the English and French translations of the Harmonized System, where it was used to set the HTS (Blue Sky the Color of Imagination v. U.S., CIT # 21-00624).

The U.S. voluntarily dismissed its customs penalty appeal brought against surety firm American Home Assurance Co., according to an April 17 joint stipulation of voluntarily dismissal filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (United States v. American Home Assurance Co., Fed. Cir. # 24-1069).

Parties in a customs case on the classification of human interface controllers will tell the Court of International Trade by May 20 if they will proceed with the case under "summary judgment motions or request for a trial," Judge Timothy Stanceu said in an April 16 order, noting that a status conference won't be held April 19 as originally planned. Importer Robert Bosch brought suit in 2020 to contest CBP's classification of the controllers under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8473.70.9900, dutiable at 2.6% (see 2303090055) (Robert Bosch v. U.S., CIT # 20-00028).

A trailer wheel exporter April 15 defended its motion to intervene as plaintiff-intervenor against a domestic producer’s opposition, saying that it's expressly considered an “interested party” under the Enforce and Protect Act (Dexter Distribution Group LLC v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 24-00019).

Petitioners and an Indian freshwater shrimp exporter on April 16 both filed briefs opposing each other’s motions for judgment (see 2402080060). The petitioners said that the exporter was attempting to go against the Commerce Department's usual practice regarding interest expenses offsets, while the exporter claimed the petitioners had no evidence its home-market sales were destined for consumption elsewhere (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v U.S., CIT # 23-00202).

Three German exporters, led by Ilsenburger Grobblech, opposed the U.S. government's motion for an extension of time to file its response brief in an appeal of the antidumping duty investigation on cut-to-length carbon and alloy steel plate from Germany. The U.S. asked for a six-day extension, but Ilsenburger said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has already given the government a 37-day extension and that the additional six days would effectively double the time under the court's rules to file a response brief (Ilsenburger Grobblech v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1219).

A Russian pipe exporter contested the International Trade Commission's redetermination upon remand that Russian pipe imports into the U.S. were injuring domestic industry (see 2402120048). It said the ITC didn’t make any changes to its analysis in the redetermination, contrary to an order by the Court of International Trade (PAO TMK v. U.S., CIT # 21-00532).

The International Trade Commission’s October order preventing Apple from importing its Series 9 and Ultra 2 watches based on allegations of patent infringement by medical device company Masimo -- which doesn’t currently sell its watches in the U.S. -- “creates serious risks for U.S. businesses,” NetChoice said Monday in a news release.

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

In a third amended scheduling order, the Court of International Trade set a new Aug. 13 deadline for motions in a case that has been ongoing since 2022. The extension follows an amended complaint filed April 1 in which plaintiff Zoetis Services said that CBP had classified a “nearly identical” product to its own under a Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading it preferred (Zoetis Services LLC v. U.S., CIT #22-00056).