Perfectus Aluminum agreed to drop its lawsuit challenging CBP’s seizure of extruded aluminum pallets, following the government’s filing of a fifth civil forfeiture complaint covering “the remainder” of Perfectus’ pallets on Feb. 9 in federal district court. The new complaint covers “approximately” 279,808 aluminum structures in “the shape of pallets” seized from the Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach and warehouses in Walnut and Industry, California, over the course of 2017, according to the complaint.
No new lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 12-18.
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 9 sustained a court-ordered redetermination by the Commerce Department that found unstenciled ASTM A-513 mechanical tubing imported by Maquilacero exempt from antidumping duties on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Mexico (A-201-805). Commerce had issued the scope ruling in 2015, finding stenciling is a requirement for the mechanical tubing exemption from the AD duty order (see 1508120023). But the Federal Circuit in 2017 overturned it, holding “the imposition of a requirement (i.e., stenciling) having nothing to do with the physical characteristics of mechanical tubing” was unreasonable, given that it “does not change the inherent quality or the intended use of the product.” Commerce will instruct CBP to set the cash deposit rate to zero for entries of the 46 models of pipe from Maquilacero, and will end suspension of liquidation and liquidate all unliquidated entries at zero percent if CIT’s Feb. 9 ruling is not appealed, it said in a subsequent notice.
The Court of International Trade is proposing changes to its rules that were recommended by a CIT advisory committee. Among other amendments, CIT is proposing to shorten the time frame for service of a summons, eliminate a provision giving an extra five days to respond to a motion when the motion is electronically delivered, extend the time frames for responding to all motions accordingly, and conform CIT discovery rules to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Comments on the changes, which apply to CIT Rules 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 16, 26, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 55, 56.1, 56.2 and Administrative Order No. 02-01, are due March 8.
A recently announced Justice Department policy limits the circumstances under which companies can be held liable for violating agency guidance documents. Issued Jan. 25, the policy memo prohibits DOJ lawyers from enforcing agency guidance documents as if they were binding in “affirmative civil enforcement cases,” including False Claims Act lawsuits. The new policy extends across government a policy adopted in November that prohibited DOJ from issuing binding guidance on its own behalf or enforcing its own guidance as binding.
A U.K. retailer, and its chief executive, that allegedly split shipments to avoid duties settled a whistleblower lawsuit against the company for about $900,000, the Justice Department said in a news release. The company, Pure Collection, and its CEO Samantha Harrison were said to separate single orders exceeding the de minimis value threshold into multiple smaller parcels in order to evade customs duties on imports over the de minimis level (see 1709080037). "This Settlement Agreement is neither an admission of liability by Pure nor a concession by the United States that its claims are not well founded," the parties said in the court filing.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 5-11:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 29 - Feb. 4:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 22-28:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 23 affirmed a lower court ruling against the Commerce Department’s new strict policies for ending antidumping and countervailing duty reviews of foreign exporters. Agreeing with a Court of International Trade Decision issued in 2015, the CAFC held that Commerce improperly changed a rule, without the required notice-and-comment, when it said in a 2011 guidance document that it would only grant late withdrawals of requests for review in “extraordinary circumstances.” The underlying regulation directs Commerce to grant requests after the deadline when “reasonable.” An importer of glycine from China had challenged the policy when Commerce refused to end a review of its supplier, Baoding Mantong, even though both Baoding Mantong and the domestic petitioner had withdrawn their requests for the Chinese company’s review. Baoding Mantong’s withdrawal was late, and the company subsequently declined to participate in the review, so Commerce assigned it a penalty AD rate of more than 400 percent. Commerce has since amended the final results of the review under CIT order to retroactively end the review of Baoding Mantong without assigning it a new AD rate.