The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 13 denied requests from exporters Guizhou Tyre and Aeolus Tyre to waive the requirement that they file a joint brief in an antidumping duty case (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2163).
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 8 lifted a stay in an Enforce and Protect Act case following its decision in the key Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. case. In that decision, the appellate court said CBP violated an EAPA respondent's due process rights by not giving it access to the confidential information in the proceeding (see 2307270038). The present case concerns an EAPA investigation on the alleged transshipment of Chinese xanthan gum via India and was stayed pending the resolution of Royal Brush, given the overlap in the due process claims (see 2310170034). The U.S. is now attempting to distinguish its present situation from Royal Brush, arguing that the Federal Circuit's recent decision is irrelevant since "the facts here are materially different" seeing as liquidation became final in the present spat given that the importer didn't appeal its denied protest at CBP (All One God Faith v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1078).
Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit during Dec. 7 oral arguments sharply questioned importer Rimco's arguments that it didn't need to raise an Eighth Amendment challenge to its adverse facts available rate administratively at the Commerce Department before challenging it in court (Rimco v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2079).
Textile gloves with a plastic coating on the palm and fingers are classifiable in the tariff schedule as gloves, not as articles of plastics, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a Dec. 6 opinion.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit conducted oral argument Dec. 6 on an appeal of a tariff classification case that ruled the wrapping, called “net wrap,” that certain farming machines use to package bales of hay were not considered agricultural equipment but rather textiles, carrying a higher duty (RKW Klerks v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1210).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 6 opinion sustained CBP's classification of knit gloves with a partial plastic coating under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6116.10.55, dutiable at 13.2%. Judges Kimberly Moore, Jimmie Reyna and Richard Taranto sided with the government over importer Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co., which championed subheading 3926.20.10, free of duty. Citing heading 6116's Explanatory Note, the court said this heading, which covers "[g]loves, mittens and mitts, knitted or crocheted," includes knitted gloves with non-knit components. The court rejected the importer's claims that Section XI Note 1(h) excluded the gloves from heading 6116 and that the Federal Circuit's ruling in Kalle USA v. U.S., a case concerning sausage casings, precluded classification under Section XI.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit judges Alan Lourie, Kara Stoll and Tiffany Cunningham questioned both the position of the government and affected domestic producers in a Dec. 5 oral argument on whether CBP properly denied payouts of interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest, on antidumping and countervailing duties under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (Adee Honey Farms v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2105) (Hilex Poly Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2106).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 4 again ruled against Commerce's use of a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test in antidumping duty cases.