The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department properly found that Export Packers Company's individually quick frozen cooked garlic cloves are outside the scope of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from China, Export Packers argued in a Jan. 16 brief at the Court of International Trade. The exporter argued that, contrary to petitioner Fresh Garlic Producers Association's claims, the plain language of the scope excludes Export Packers' cooked garlic and other sources, including a separate scope ruling on blanched garlic and Commerce's preliminary determination, don't support the petitioner's arguments (Export Packers Company v. United States, CIT # 24-00061).
In oral argument Jan. 16 regarding the Commerce Department's 2021 administrative review of multilayered wood flooring from China, Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif asked counsel for exporters and the government what documentation might be required to prove to Commerce that a private Chinese company wasn’t government-controlled (Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00106).
If the Supreme Court eliminates the president's ability to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, it may not mean the return of the de minimis exemption, which President Donald Trump also ended via IEEPA, trade lawyers told us.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Importer PF America dropped another of its cases seeking an exclusion from Section 301 China tariffs for its vinyl tile flooring entries on Jan. 14 at the Court of International Trade. Recently, the importer voluntarily dismissed two other cases it brought seeking similar exclusions (see 2509300016). PF America entered the goods under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 3916.20.0020 and 9903.88.17, though CBP classified the goods under subheadings 3916.20.0091 and 9903.88.02, subjecting the flooring to Section 301 duties (PF America v. United States, CIT # 22-00020).
In remand comments, exporter POSCO continued to challenge the Commerce Department’s decision to find that South Korea’s emissions cap-and-trade program provided it a financial benefit, saying the program’s emissions permits were “restriction[s],” not benefits (POSCO v. United States, CIT # 24-00006).
A 1985 Ferrari 288 GTO is properly classified under duty-free Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9705.10.0090 as a "collectors' piece of historical interest," rather than as a motor vehicle of subheading 8703.23.0190, dutiable at 2.5%, importer Ferrari 288 GTO LLC argued in a Jan. 14 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Ferrari 288 GTO LLC v. United States, CIT # 26-00671).
The Commerce Department on Jan. 15 explained more about its finding that exporter Hoa Phat Pipe isn't eligible to certify whether its light-walled rectangular pipe and tube was made using hot-rolled steel from China. After a remand order from the Court of International Trade, Hoa Phat confirmed that it was "unable to track the source of" its hot-rolled steel inputs prior to the inquiry period in the antidumping duty and countervailing duty circumvention proceeding at issue and has no basis to certify the country of origin of its pipe consistent with the agency's practice, Commerce said (Hoa Phat Steel Pipe v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00248).
The Court of International Trade erred when it failed to find that importer BASF's food additive betatene is classified as a natural or synthetically reproduced provitamin under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 2936, BASF argued in its opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The importer said that it clearly established that its product was "prima facie classifiable under heading 2936, meaning that as a matter of law, classification under heading 2106," as a dietary supplement, "cannot stand" (BASF Corporation v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 26-1056).