Trade-Related Court Cases Filed Dec. 25-31
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 25-31:
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Mitsubishi Power Americas, Inc., challenging CBP's denial of its protest claiming its supported SCR catalysts of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 8421,30.4000 or 8421.39.0190, free of duty, and secondary subheading 9903.88.01 that carries a 25% Section 301 duty, should be classified under subheading 3815.19.0000, free of duty, and secondary subheading 9903.88.67, which is exempt from Section 301 duties. # 23-00271. Filed Dec. 28.
Zinus, Inc., challenging CBP's final affirmative finding of evasion of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China. # 23-00272. Filed Dec. 29.
Froggy's Fog, LLC, challenging CBP's denial of its protest claiming its fog machines of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8424.89.9000, dutiable at 1.8% with a 25% Section 301 duty, should be classified under subheading 9505.90.6000, free of duty. # 23-00273. Filed Dec. 29.
Auxin Solar Inc. and Concept Clean Energy, Inc., challenging the Commerce Department's final rule suspending the collection of antidumping and countervailing duties on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules found to be circumventing the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on solar cells and modules from China. # 23-00274. Filed Dec. 29.
Appeals of CIT Decisions
The following appeals of Court of International Trade decisions were filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit during the week of Dec. 25-31:
Kumar Industries, challenging a November CIT decision sustaining the Commerce Department's assignment of a 13.61% adverse facts available dumping rate to the exporter based on its "inadequate explanations" regarding one of its partner's ownership interests in two unnamed companies as part of the first antidumping duty review on glycine from India. # 24-1293. Filed Dec. 27.