The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. conflated importer Prysmian Cables and Systems' claims that the Commerce Department improperly denied its requests for Section 232 steel tariff exclusions with its claim that Commerce failed to "perform certain mandatory and discrete actions in responding" to the requests, Prysmian argued in its response to the government's motion to partially dismiss the case (Prysmian Cables and Systems v. U.S., CIT # 24-00101).
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 4 granted importer Incase Design Corp.'s voluntarily dismissal of its suit on the classification of its iPad and iPhone cases. Incase brought the suit in 2016 to contest CBP's classification of the goods under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 3926.10.00, dutiable at 5.3%, and 3926.90.99, dutiable at 5.3%. The company said the goods should have been classified under subheading 4820.30.00, free of duty, or subheading 8473.30.51, free of duty (Incase Design Corp. v. United States, CIT # 16-00181).
Mexican tomato exporter NS Brands said Dec. 3 that the Commerce Department needed to consider the “prejudice to companies now in existence” that resulted from resuming an antidumping duty investigation from 1996 with the same respondents (Bioparques de Occidente v. United States, CIT Consol. # 19-00204).
Anti-forced labor group International Rights Advocates (IRAdvocates) urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to reject the government's request for a two-month delay in filing a reply brief in the group's suit seeking CBP to respond to a withhold release order petition to ban cocoa from Cote d'Ivoire. IRAdvocates claimed that every "major delay in CBP doing its statutory duty to ban the importation of cocoa harvested by child slaves condemns thousands of children to a continuation of the horrible condition they must endure" (International Rights Advocates v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-2316).
The Commerce Department’s self-developed “levels of trade” test doesn’t comport with U.S. law, especially since the Supreme Court's holding in Loper Bright, Spanish aluminum exporter Compania Valenciana de Aluminio Baux argued Nov. 27 in support of its June motion for judgment (see 2406130052) (Compania Valenciana de Aluminio Baux, S.L.U. v. United States, CIT # 23-00259).
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 5 let the Commerce Department add an analysis memorandum from a previous antidumping proceeding to the administrative record of an anti-circumvention proceeding on Vietnamese circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe. Judge Stephen Vaden dubbed the spat as "pedantic," and said the memo should be part of the record because it was referenced by both Commerce and respondent SeAH Steel VINA Corp.
Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 4 questioned importer Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) and the government regarding the tariff classification of frozen fruit mixtures. Judge Todd Hughes led the bulk of the questioning, pushing Nature's Touch on how to classify the goods if the court finds that the mixtures aren't food preparations, as claimed by the company, and how they should be classified instead under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 0811, which covers certain frozen fruit (Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2093).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The value of solar cell processing in Thailand was not “small,” plaintiff-intervenor and importer NextEra Energy Constructors said Dec. 2 (Canadian Solar International Limited v. U.S., CIT # 23-00222).