The Court of International Trade dismissed four tariff classification cases brought by importer Continental Automotive Systems, in a Nov. 3 order. The actions concerned the classification of nitrous oxide sensors or exhaust sensors. CBP classified the merchandise under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9027.10.20 (1.2% in 2016, 0.8% in 2017). Continental said it instead should have been classified under subheading 9026.80.20, free of duty. Continental filed the stipulation of dismissal without explanation as to why the cases were tossed (Continental Automotive Systems v. United States, CIT #s 17-00106, 17-00263, 18-00096, 18-00237).

Antidumping duty petitioners' "notice of supplemental authority" in a case over whether Amsted Rail Co.'s former counsel violated ethical rules in an injury proceeding is neither supplemental nor an authority, plaintiffs in the matter, led by ARC, argued in a Nov. 3 reply brief. The supplemental authority, which included a declaration from Georgetown University Law Center ethics professor Michael Frisch and accused the plaintiffs of abusing the litigation system, could have been filed "contemporaneous with the [petitioner's] motion to vacate the temporary restraining order," and it is not an authority since "it is not a statute, regulation, or decisional law," the motion said (Amsted Rail v. ITC , CIT #22-00307).

Selective Cushioning Units (SCUs) are products of Mexico due to their complex assembly, not products of China subject to Section 301 duties, Strato argued in a Nov. 3 complaint to the Court of International Trade (Strato, Inc., v. U.S., CIT #22-00315).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Exporter Jin Tiong Materials Manufacturer was not required to submit a separate rate application or separate rate certification to establish its eligibility for a separate rate in an antidumping duty review, plaintiffs Jin Tiong and Repwire argued in a Nov. 2 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The exporters dubbed the issue "not complicated," arguing that while Jin Tiong did not submit a separate rate application, Section A of the standard questionnaire in non-market economy cases requests the same information. As a result, Commerce properly issued a questionnaire to Jin Tiong but illegally withdrew it before the exporter was able to submit its responses (Repwire v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00016).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Nov. 2 oral argument questioned importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, over its jurisdictional grounds to challenge a CBP decision, given that the company failed to file a protest. SIS argued that it didn't need to file a protest to challenge the liquidation of its entries, given that there was nothing to protest within 180 days of liquidation. At oral argument, Judges Timothy Dyk, Richard Taranto and Todd Hughes probed this position, with Hughes in particular expressing doubt over the claim, given the finality surrounding CBP's liquidation of imports (Acquisition 362 v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1161).

Antidumping duty petitioners submitted various supplemental authorities in Amsted Rail Co.'s case over its former counsel's purported "betrayal" in using a former client's information against it in a later injury proceeding at the International Trade Commission. The petitioners, collectively referred to as the Coalition of Freight Coupler Producers, included a declaration from Georgetown University Law Center ethics professor Michael Frisch discussing whether ARC's former counsel, Daniel Pickard, now-partner at Buchanan Ingersoll, committed an ethics violation. Frisch said that the D.C. Bar Rule 1.9 concerning conflicts of interest does not apply to ARC since the only party affected by the injury proceeding is ASF-K de Mexico, a Mexican maquiladora factory affiliated with ARC that did not formerly employ Pickard, and that ARC's lawsuit is an "abuse of the litigation process" (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States International Trade Commission, CIT #22-00307).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Court of International Trade dismissed three customs cases in a series of orders on Nov. 1 and 2. One case, filed by Incase Design Group, concerned the classification of sports armband cell phone holders, with the plaintiff vying for classification under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4202.99.90. No explanation was given for the dismissal. The second action, brought by Conrad Sales Group, concerned the classification of frozen tilapia filets, and was dismissed due to a lack of prosecution. The third case, brought by Tali Corp., concerned the classification of glassware and also was dropped due to a lack of prosecution.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Nov. 2 order deactivated U.S. Steel Corp.'s recently filed appeal over the 2016-17 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods from South Korea. U.S. Steel filed the appeal amid a spat over a motion from plaintiff SeAH Steel Corp. to reconsider the court's opinion. Per Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4), the time to file an appeal runs from the order disposing of the last remaining motion seeking to alter or amend the judgment (SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #23-1109).