The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 6 notice dismissed a customs case filed by Grobest Global Service over frozen tilapia fillets entered under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 0304.61.0000. The importer filed the case to contest CBP's assessment of 10% Section 301 duties on the fillets, arguing that the entries qualify for an exclusion from the duties under secondary subheading 9903.88.43. Grobest filed a notice of dismissal without an explanation (Grobest Global Service v. United States, CIT #20-03827).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Customs broker license exam test taker Byungmin Chae filed an informal brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 3 in his bid to get credit for a handful of questions on the April 2018 customs broker license exam. Responding to the U.S.'s brief defending its answers for questions 5, 27 and 33 on the test, Chae further attempted to make his case for why his selected answers were correct (Byungmin Chae v. Janet Yellen, Fed. Cir. #22-2017).
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 4 opinion ruled that CBP properly classified net wraps used for bailing hay as a warp knit fabric under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6005.39.00. Judge Mark Barnett ruled against classification under plaintiff RKW Klerks' preferred subheading 8433.90.50 as "parts" of "harvesting or threshing machinery."
The Commerce Department failed to adhere to the Court of International Trade's remand instructions concerning its duty to perform verification in an antidumping duty case, plaintiffs led by Bonney Forge argued in an Oct. 3 brief at the Court of International Trade. The trade court ordered Commerce to either conduct verification, even if virtually, or more fully explain why it cannot in the context of current conditions and not those of the investigation period. Bonney Forge argued that Commerce violated these instructions by basing its remand results on the conditions during the investigation (Bonney Forge Corporation v. United States, CIT #20-03837).
Importer Bral failed to clear the three-prong test needed to make a valid claim for an allowance in value for imports of plywood, the U.S. argued in an Oct. 3 reply brief at the Court of International Trade over its cross-motion for judgment. While Bral is correct that it does not make commercial sense to contract for defective goods, the importer needs to prove at a minimum that it entered into a contract with the overseas plywood producer for a good of specific qualities that is to perform in a certain way -- a bar Bral failed to meet, the brief said (Bral Corporation v. U.S., CIT #20-00154).
CBP filed remand results in an Enforce and Protect Act case at the Court of International Trade Oct. 3, continuing to find products from importers Ikadan System USA and Weihai Gaosai Metal are subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on steel grating from China. The U.S. had filed a voluntary remand request to add the record of the Commerce Department's scope ruling to the record, but after putting it on the record, CBP stuck to its guns on the evasion finding, declaring that the scope ruling supported its initial decision (Ikadan System USA v. U.S., CIT #21-00592).
The Supreme Court's decision in West Virginia v. EPA demands that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reconsider its decision finding that a protest with CBP is needed to retroactively apply Section 301 duty exclusions, the appellants and importers ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings argued in an Oct. 4 brief. Seeking reconsideration at the appellate court, ARP and Harrison said that the Federal Circuit's opinion does not consider the EPA case, which embraced the "major questions doctrine" -- the idea that federal agencies need explicit congressional approval to regulate issues fundamental to the economy (ARP Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2176).
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 4 opinion ruled that CBP properly classified net wraps used for bailing hay as a warp knit fabric under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6005.39.00. Judge Mark Barnett ruled against classification under plaintiff RKW Klerks' preferred subheading 8433.90.50 as "parts" of "harvesting or threshing machinery."
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 26 - Oct. 2: