A remand where the Commerce Department reviews a particular issue is a new agency action and renders moot any arguments that a party did not exhaust its administrative remedies prior to the remand, said plaintiffs in an antidumping duty case, led by Ellwood City Forge Co., in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade on June 17. As such, the plaintiffs' arguments as to the agency's procedural obligations relating to on-site verification made during the remand proceeding were properly exhausted, the brief, recently made public, said (Ellwood City Forge Company v. U.S., CIT Consol. #21-00007).
Country of origin cases
The U.S., in an amended complaint, continues to fail to show that importer Crown Cork & Seal (CCS) committed fraud or gross negligence over misclassified metal lid imports, the importer argued in a June 22 motion to dismiss at the Court of International Trade. Seeking again to have the trade court toss the U.S.'s first two counts in the case, CCS said the amended complaint doesn't provide any new facts that can revive the two counts which Judge M. Miller Baker already dismissed (U.S. v. Crown Cork & Seal, CIT #21-00361).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The U.K. Court of Appeal in a June 21 judgment dismissed a case from Build-a-Bear Workshop over the classification of accessories for its stuffed bear imports. Build-a-Bear originally filed the case to avoid the 4.7% duty rate for the accessories, which included clothing and wigs, footwear, plastic and textile hearts and animal accessories, and seek duty-free treatment. In March, the Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery sided with Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs agency that the accessories should be classified as "other toys" (see 2104010047).
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has 32 extra days, until Aug. 1, to file its lists 3 and 4A tariff remand results in the Section 301 litigation, a three-judge panel at the Court of International Trade said in a June 22 order. DOJ, on USTR’s behalf, asked for a 60-day extension to Aug. 30 to fix its Administrative Procedure Act violations, citing the volume of work required to meet the remand order, plus the agency’s limited staff resources and the additional projects compounding its workload (see 2206210042).
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative can’t demonstrate good cause for a Section 301 remand deadline extension “that would leave uncured its established legal violation for another two months to the continuing detriment of American businesses and consumers,” Akin Gump lawyers for Section 301 litigation test plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products said in an opposition brief June 21 at the Court of International Trade in docket 1:21-cv-00052.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit held in a June 16 opinion that window covering manufacturer Springs Window Fashions did not illegally fire customs broker Jennifer Lam-Quang-Vinh over her position that the company had to pay Section 301 China tariffs. Judges Diane Sykes, Michael Brennan and Michael Scudder said that the record evidence does not support Lam's position that she was fired in retaliation (Jennifer Lam-Quang-Vinh v. Springs Window Fashions, 7th Cir. #21-2665).
Ting-Ting Kao, an international trade attorney at White & Case, will be leaving the firm June 17, she said in a filing at the Court of International Trade. Kao has worked at the firm since 2008, where she started as an associate, then as counsel from 2020. Kao worked on classification, country of origin and multilateral trade agreements matters, among other things, the firm said.