The Commerce Department cannot deduct Section 232 national security duties from antidumping duty respondent Borusan Mannesman's U.S. price because the duties are remedial, temporary and deducting them would count as a double remedy, making them unlike normal customs duties, the respondent argued. Filing a reply brief Aug. 4 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the respondent said Commerce failed to conduct a "fulsome analysis" of whether the Section 232 duties are more like normal customs duties or to special duties, like Section 201 safeguards, and instead "confined its analysis" to finding distinctions between Section 232 and Section 201 duties. The agency also failed to acknowledge the "legal and constitutional distinction between regular duties imposed by Congress" and special duties imposed by the president (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2097).
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 4 order denied defendant Greenlight Organic and Parambir Singh Aulakh's motion for summary judgment over the date that the U.S. discovered customs fraud for the purpose of finding whether the statute of limitations had run out. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled that the undisputed facts don't back any of three dates floated by the defendants as the date that the U.S. first received evidence of Greenlight's double invoicing scheme. In the scheme, Greenlight is accused of fraudulently misclassifying its Vietnam-origin knit garments.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
CBP and importer Ohka America reached a settlement over the proper tariff classification of photoresists in three different cases at the Court of International Trade. According to the three separate stipulated judgments on agreed statement of facts, the parties reached an agreement on the proper Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading for the entries, dropping the duty rate from 6.5% to 3%. CBP originally liquidated the photoresists under HTS subheading 3707.90.32, which provides for "Chemical preparations for photographic uses (other than varnishes, glues, adhesives and similar preparations...: Other:Chemical preparations for photographic uses: Other." The parties agreed, though, to liquidate the entries under subheading 3707.10.00, whch provides for “Chemical preparations for photographic uses (other than varnishes, glues, adhesives and similar preparations). Sensitizing emulsions." The cases were filed in 2005, 2006 and 2008 (Ohka America v. United States, CIT #05-00118, #06-00415, #08-00029).
CBP and Lerner New York reached a settlement over the proper classification of two types of ladies' knitted tops. Filing a stipulated judgment on an agreed statement of facts at the Court of International Trade Aug. 1, the parties settled on a Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading for the tops, dropping the duty rate from 17% to 10.9%. The dispute concerned ladies' knitted tops of over 90% cotton and less than 10% spandex with a built-in shelf bra and ladies' knitted tops of manmade fibers with a built-in shelf bra (Lerner New York v. U.S., CIT #05-00412).
Antidumping duty respondent and defendant-intervenor in a case at the Court of International Trade, Shakti Forge Industries, has switched its representation. Filing a notice of substitution of attorney, Shakti parted with its counsel at Barnes Richardson to employ Robert Gosselink and Aqmar Rahman at Trade Pacific. The case concerns the AD investigation on forged steel fittings from India (Bonney Forge v. U.S., CIT #20-03837).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative often found itself weighing the possible harm to U.S. consumers from the Lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs against the need to give the duties enough teeth to curb China’s allegedly unfair trade practices, said the agency in its 90-page “remand determination,” filed Monday in docket 1:21-cv-52 at the U.S. Court of International Trade.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative often found itself weighing the possible harm to U.S. consumers from the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs against the need to give the duties enough teeth to curb China’s allegedly unfair trade practices, the agency said in its 90-page “remand determination,” filed Aug. 1 at the Court of International Trade (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052). Submitting its bid to ease the court's concerns over modifications made to the third and fourth tariff waves, USTR provided its justifications for removing various goods from the tariff lists ranging from critical minerals to seafood products.
In filings at the USMCA Secretariat, Mexico and Canada say the Uniform Regulations for USMCA are clear, and say that " roll-up applies to the calculation of [regional value content] RVC for a vehicle. It obliges Parties to take 'no account' of the non-originating materials contained in an originating good when that good is used in the subsequent production of another good."