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 Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Oct. 22 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 24 order gave the U.S. a one-week deadline extension to Nov. 4 in the Section 301 cases to file its response to the plaintiffs’ comments on the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative remand results. The government argued in its motion for extension that good cause exists for the delay (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052).
The Commerce Department properly hit antidumping duty respondent Shanghai Tainai Bearing with partial adverse facts available, saying Tainai should know how to collect factor of production information from its downstream suppliers, given that the agency was conducting the 33rd review of the AD order, the U.S. argued in an Oct. 20 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The government said Commerce legally deducted Section 301 duties from Tainai's U.S. price and capped Section 301 duty payments (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #22-00038).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Advantus Corp. moved to voluntarily dismiss its case seeking to obtain Section 301 tariff refunds at the Court of International Trade. The case was previously stayed pending the appeal of decisions made in two cases, ARP Materials v. U.S. and Harrison Steel Castings Co. v. U.S. In these cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the trade court's ruling that a protest was needed to retroactively apply Section 301 tariff exclusions (see 2209060035). Both the Federal Circuit and CIT said that they did not have the jurisdiction to hear the challenge since the importers did not timely file protests of the CBP liquidations assessing the Section 301 duties (Advantus Corp. v. United States, CIT #21-00055).
The Court of International Trade should transfer interest in a case contesting the validity of the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs filed by Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing to Hitachi Astemo Americas, counsel for Hitachi Astemo Americas said in a motion for transfer of interest. The U.S. consented to the transfer. Both Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing's and Hitachi Astemo America's cases are under the massive Section 301 litigation. In July, Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing assigned all its interests in its case to Hitachi Astemo Americas, making it the real party in interest in Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing's case, the motion said (Hitachi Astemo Americas v. United States, CIT #20-00973).
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.