The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
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).
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).
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.
A CBP remand determination that importer Diamond Tools Technology didn't evade antidumping and countervailing duty orders on diamond sawblades from China is correct, although the agency continues to err in its underlying explanations, the company said in its April 17 remand comments at the Court of International Trade. CBP admitted under protest that Diamond Tools didn't make a "material and false statement" in its March remand results (see 2303200072) but the importer argued that CBP still misinterprets the Enforce and Protect Act statute and misunderstands its authority (Diamond Tools Technology v. United States, CIT # 20-00060).
BOSTON -- In breakout sessions on operational perspectives on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act and the technology that can help importers do UFLPA due diligence, CBP officials acknowledged that it's hard to provide the sort of evidence required to clear an applicability review after goods are detained.
The Coalition of Freight Coupler Producers refiled a motion to waive the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's redaction limits in a conflict-of-interest proceeding after the court rejected an initial bid to waive the requirements. The coalition asked the court for permission to redact 180 unique words, given that the reasons for redaction are rooted in existing judicial orders and the law, "are narrowly tailored toward" three groups of information grounded in the law and the redaction would not "frustrate the public policy regarding confidentiality in proceedings" at the Federal Circuit (Amsted Rail Company v. ITC, Fed. Cir. # 23-1355).
The Court of International Trade dismissed a suit from SXP Schultz Xtruded Products seeking a refund of Section 232 duties on four different entries for which an exclusion was granted, saying the case lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction. Judge Jennier Choe-Groves said SXP would have had jurisdiction under Section 1581(a) if it filed a protest to contest CBP's liquidation of the entries. The judge noted the contradiction in SXP's arguments on the futility of filing a protest since the importer timely filed a protest for a fifth entry of the same goods, leading to a refund of the Section 232 steel and aluminum duties.
U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr for Northern Texas in Dallas denied, via electronic order Friday (docket 3:23-cv-355), AT&T’s Sept. 9 motion to dismiss EDN Communication’s fraud and tortious interference complaint for failure to state a claim. AT&T may file an amended motion to dismiss based on 5th Circuit case law within 28 days, said Starr’s order. EDN in January 2018 became AT&T’s “first and only” minority-owned FirstNet authorized dealer, said its July 27 complaint. But the relationship soured when AT&T “surreptitiously, systematically, and with racist animus,” appropriated money due to EDN and “usurped” EDN’s contacts and value and converted them “to the sole property of AT&T,” said the complaint. It also alleged AT&T stole EDN’s trade secrets, and “inserted an all-white AT&T sales team” to replace EDN and to “destroy the sales organization” that EDN had built, costing the plaintiff more than $100 million in actual damages.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade: