The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed a suit from fireworks importer Jake's Fireworks concerning the Consumer Product Safety Commission's determination that the company's "Excalibur" line of fireworks constitutes a banned hazardous substance under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. Judge Theodore Chuang said the CPSC's notices of noncompliance do not amount to final agency action, depriving Jake's Fireworks of the right to challenge the notices as having violated the Administrative Procedure Act (Jake's Fireworks v. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, D. Md. 2023)
Jacob Kopnick
Jacob Kopnick, Associate Editor, is a reporter for Trade Law Daily and its sister publications Export Compliance Daily and International Trade Today. He joined the Warren Communications News team in early 2021 covering a wide range of topics including trade-related court cases and export issues in Europe and Asia. Jacob's background is in trade policy, having spent time with both CSIS and USTR researching international trade and its complexities. Jacob is a graduate of the University of Michigan with a B.A. in Public Policy.
Heat-treated forged steel rods imported by ME Global are properly classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule as "other bars" not further worked than forged, rather than in the importer's preferred classification as "grinding balls and similar articles for mills," the Court of International Trade ruled in a May 2 decision.
The Commerce Department extended the deadline to issue its final determinations in the anti-circumvention inquiries concerning solar cells from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam, until Aug. 17. In a memo dated April 26, Jose Rivera, international trade compliance analyst at Commerce, said that "good cause exists" to give the agency more time, including the "numerous complex methodological issues for which Commerce requires more time to analyze." Rivera added that the agency received around 20 briefs from interested parties in the inquiries.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of April 10-16 and 17-23.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld CBP's decision not to grant credit to customs broker license exam test taker Byungmin Chae of Elkhorn, Nebraska, for two questions on the April 2018 exam. Judges Pauline Newman, Sharon Prost and Todd Hughes granted Chae credit for one of three questions he challenged, but that was insufficient to bring him up to the 75% threshold needed to pass the test.
Importer SXP Schulz Xtruded Products needed a protest to properly challenge CBP's failure to apply a Section 232 duty exclusion on four entries of its steel forged and turned bars, the Court of International Trade ruled. Dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves held that SXP could have filed for an extension of liquidation while it was waiting for the Commerce Department to correct the erroneous exclusion it issued or simply have filed a protest, which would have queued up jurisdiction under Section 1581(a).
A recent False Claims Act case brought over unpaid marking duties on imports of Mifeprex, the active ingredient for the abortion pill mifepristone, was filed by the Life Legal Defense Foundation in a bid to "take some gold out of Egypt," the foundation's lawyer Catherine Short told Trade Law Daily. "This company is making drugs that kill babies, and we were able to cut away some of their profit from that," Short said.
The Court of International Trade is considering asking certain plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation how they would like to proceed with claims that are distinct from the ones already decided by the trade court. Speaking at an April 11 status conference with the government and representatives of the 15-member steering committee for the plaintiffs, Judge Mark Barnett asked if the court should ask those plaintiffs whether or not they want to continue to litigate the distinct claims, and if the claims move forward, whether there is any reason to wait to resolve them (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT # 21-00052).
Importer Keirton USA is not entitled to $487,198.31 in attorney fees and other expenses incurred during its suit against the U.S. regarding goods CBP seized as drug paraphernalia, the Court of International Trade ruled April 11. Judge Claire Kelly said that because the issue in the case -- whether Washington state law permitted the goods to be imported over the federal ban on drug paraphernalia -- was a novel one and the government had a reasonable basis in law for litigating the issue, Keirton was not entitled to the legal fees.
The Court of International Trade on April 11 dismissed without prejudice a suit from Environment One Corp. seeking to impose a Section 301 exclusion on 31 entries, for failing to state a claim on which relief can be granted. While Judge Mark Barnett ruled against the government's motion to dismiss the case pertaining to 23 of the entries for lack of jurisdiction, the judge ultimately granted the U.S. motion to dismiss the case since the plaintiff failed to include key information about the merchandise at issue in the case's amended complaint. Barnett gave Environment One 10 days to file a second amended complaint lest the case be dismissed with prejudice.