A number of Canadian softwood lumber exporters, on one side of a case, and, on the other, defendant-intervenors led by a domestic trade group, filed in total three briefs supporting their respective motions for judgment (see 2404110063) in a case involving the Commerce Department’s alleged misapplication of the transactions disregarded test to increase the costs of a review’s mandatory respondent (Government of Canada v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00187).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on Oct. 6 with the following headquarters ruling (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated between Sept. 23 and Sept. 28 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Three grape grower trade groups filed a complaint on Sept. 13 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the Agriculture Department's notice allowing table grapes from Chile to be imported under a "systems approach" as opposed to using the standard fumigation requirements (California Table Grape Commission v. United States Department of Agriculture, D.D.C. # 24-02645).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated between Aug. 30 and Sept. 9 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
Responding to motions for judgment filed by the government of Canada and Canadian lumber exporters led by a mandatory respondent, the U.S. pushed back Aug. 22 against claims that, among other things, it had wrongly included a legacy contract in the calculation of the respondent’s costs and found a “bookkeeping convenience” to be evidence of less-than-fair-value transactions between its affiliates (see 2404110063) (Government of Canada v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00187).
Chinese semiconductor equipment maker Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment (AMEC) sued the Pentagon last week for wrongly designating the firm as a Chinese military company. AMEC claimed that its designation violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 and the U.S. Constitution (Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment v. United States, D.D.C. # 24-02357).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York: