Only an admissibility decision from CBP can stop a deemed exclusion from happening according to the law, importer Root Sciences argued at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a bid to establish subject-matter jurisdiction in its case over seized imports. The Court of International Trade previously ruled that it doesn't have jurisdiction over cases in which CBP seized the subject goods, finding that a seizure does not constitute an admissibility determination (see 2110070022). Root argued that this decision throws it into a "jurisdictional wilderness" and calls into question the validity of past decisions the trade court relied on for the notion that seizure before the expiration of the 30-day deemed exclusion window stops the running of the statutory deemed exclusion period (Root Sciences v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1795).
Wireless carriers supported a December waiver request by proponents of cellular-vehicle-to-everything use of the 5.9 GHz band asking to be able to deploy now (see 2112140070). Most initial comments supported approval of that, and other subsequent waiver requests, though NCTA and a few other commenters had reservations (see 207290032). Other commenters raised patent concerns. Replies were due Monday in docket 19-138.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of Aug. 15-21 and 22-28:
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.
The Commerce Department erred in applying adverse facts available to countervailing duty review respondent Qingdao Ge Rui Da Rubber Co. (GRT), the respondent argued in an Aug. 25 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The case concerns the 2020 review of the CVD order on truck and bus tires from China. Commerce hit GRT with a 1.78% AFA rate over the respondent's supposed use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program -- a position that has repeatedly been struck down by the trade court. After the review, GRT filed its two-count complaint to argue that Commerce erred in using AFA over the EBCP and that "upon information and belief, Commerce erred in other aspects of its Final Results with respect to GRT and the EBC program that will be evident upon review of the administrative record in this case" (Qingdao Ge Rui Da Rubber Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00229).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate in a broad challenge to the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs after denying a petition for a full court rehearing. The appellate court previously dismissed the case, led by USP Holdings, in June, unconvinced of the importers' arguments that the Commerce Department in its underlying report was required to find an imminent threat to domestic industry and did not do so (see 2206090047). The appellants filed for the rehearing, citing the Supreme Court's recent decision in West Virginia v. EPA, arguing that the authority to regulate international trade is a "major question" that requires explicit delegation from Congress (see 2207220071) (USP Holdings v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-1726).
The Court of International Trade failed to recognize that key facts in a customs fraud case are not in dispute, but if it had, the court "would likely have" come to a different conclusion over when the statute of limitations had run out for the U.S. to bring its case, defendants Greenlight Organic and Parambir Singh Aulakh argued. Filing a motion for rehearing Aug. 25, the defendants said the trade court committed an error when finding that a piece of evidence has to establish fraud for the statute of limitations to begin to run and not merely give allegations of misconduct to the government (United States v. Greenlight Organic, CIT #17-00031).
Protests are not a prerequisite for Section 301 refunds on goods retroactively excluded from the duties on them and the government overstepped its authority in imposing such a requirement, Environment One argued in an Aug. 18 brief at the Court of International Trade (Environment One Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 22-00124).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York: