The government's motion to dismiss an Enforce and Protect Act case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit because the entries at issue have been liquidated would deprive importer Royal Brush Manufacturing of any judicial recourse and allow CBP's illegal liquidation of the entries, Royal Brush argued in a Jan. 23 reply brief. Arguing the case is moot because of the liquidations misconstrues the law and presumes incorrectly that Royal Brush’s interests are limited to the erroneous assessment of additional duties," the importer said (Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1226).
Country of origin cases
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
T-connector and tail light converter kits with some Chinese parts don't qualify for preferential tariff treatment under the USMCA, according to a recently released CBP ruling, dated Nov. 15, 2022.
Boronized steel tubes made in the U.S. are unfinished steel goods, not repaired articles, DOJ argued in a Jan. 20 counterclaim that is seeking $760,000 in unpaid duties at the Court of International Trade in a denied protest case filed by an importer (Maple Leaf Marketing v. United States, CIT # 20-03839).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 23 order denied plaintiff-appellants' motion for an expedited briefing schedule in an attorney conflict-of-interest case. Peter Marksteiner, clerk of the court, said that while the appellants, led by Amsted Rail Company, could "self-expedite the filing of their briefs," they failed to show that an expedited briefing was necessary (Amsted Rail Company v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1355).
The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 20 order dismissed a case on the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China. Commerce originally tapped two mandatory respondents in the review, selecting Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon and Jilin Bright Future Chemicals. The agency gave Datong Juqing a zero percent dumping rate while assigning Jilin Bright a $0.62 per kilogram dumping margin. The agency then assigned separate rate respondents the same $0.62/kg rate it gave to Jilin Bright (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., et al. v. United States, CIT #22-00335).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit proposes to amend eight of its rules of practice and four of its practice notes, it said in a Jan. 20 update. The court previously delayed the implementation of the amendments (see 2211170033). The amendments would alter rules 26, 30, 31, 33, 33.1, 34, 39 and 47.6, and the practice notes to rules 34, 42, 47.5 and 47.6. If adopted, the amendments would take effect March 1. Comments are due by Feb. 21.
Two businessmen -- Russian national Vladislav Osipov and British national Richard Masters -- were charged for their roles in a sanctions evasion and money laundering scheme connected with the ownership and operation of the $90 million superyacht Tango, DOJ announced. The yacht is owned by sanctioned Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg. Per the terms of the indictments unsealed Jan. 20 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Osipov and Masters are accused of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and commit offenses against the U.S., violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and money laundering, DOJ said.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should reject plaintiff-appellants' bid for an expedited briefing schedule in an attorney conflict-of-interest case, defendant-intervenor-appellee Coalition of Freight Rail Coupler Producers argued in a Jan. 19 reply brief. The appellants, led by Amsted Rail Co., have failed to both establish good cause to expedite the appeal and show that they will suffer irreparable harm absent the accelerated schedule, since the underlying injury proceeding at the International Trade Commission will be subject to judicial review after the proceeding is finished, the coalition said (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1355).
The Supreme Court of the U.S. held oral arguments on Jan. 17 over Turkish state-owned Halkbank's claims that the U.S. judicial system does not have the jurisdiction to hear criminal cases against foreign governments and their state-owned entities. Halkbank is attempting to shirk prosecution over its efforts to help Iran evade U.S. sanctions in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The bank's arguments received a mixed reaction from the Supreme Court, with numerous justices expressing doubt over the plaintiff's claims that it is immune from criminal prosecution under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. U.S., #21-1450).