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.
Net wraps used for bailing hay are properly classified as warp knit fabric under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6005.39.00, the DOJ argued in an April 10 opening brief filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. RKW Klerks appealed the Court of International Trade's Oct. 4 decision that held that the net wraps are warp knit fabric rather than RKW's preferred classification as "parts of agricultural machines" under HTS subheading 8433.90.50 (see 2210050032) (RKW Klerks v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1210).
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
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.
Three conservation groups reached a settlement with the Interior Department that will require the agency to soon reach a decision that could lead to a ban on imports of wildlife, including fish, from Mexico. Interior must come to a decision by May 19 and provide a “substantive response” describing why it reached that decision 15 days later.
The U.S. will not participate in the appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over whether the Court of International Trade improperly granted an injunction against antidumping duty cash deposits on steel nails from Oman. The government sent a letter to the appellate court telling it that it didn't file a notice of appeal in the case, so it will not be filing a brief nor participating in any oral argument (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Fed Cir. # 23-1661).
DOJ argued that its counterclaims against an importer in a tariff classification case on dried botanicals should be sustained by the Court of International Trade, despite similar counterclaims being rejected. In an April 6 brief, DOJ said that the importer, Second Nature Designs, claimed "only that the Government has failed to state a claim" and that "such a claim is barred by the statutory finality of liquidation" (see 2303030015) rather than making a jurisdictional argument (Second Nature Designs v. U.S., CIT # 18-00131).
Three conservation groups reached a settlement with the Interior Department that will require the agency to soon reach a decision that could lead to a ban on imports of wildlife, including fish, from Mexico. Interior must come to a decision by May 19 and provide a “substantive response” describing why it reached that decision 15 days later.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 6 denied a motion from the Coalition of Freight Coupler Producers to waive the court's redaction limits so as to hide the names of certain law firms and attorneys involved in the conflict-of-interest proceeding. Judge Evan Wallach said that the coalition's motion "does not even attempt" to show that the additional markings are needed "pursuant to a statute, administrative regulation, or court rule" (Amsted Rail Co. v. ITC, Fed. Cir. # 23-1355)
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade: