The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of July 18-24:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
CBP's findings in its Enforce and Protect Act investigation on wooden cabinets and vanities from China were arbitrary and an abuse of discretion, Skyview Cabinet said in a July 18 motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade. "Simply put, CBP failed in its investigation duty, believing that it was confronted with evidence of basic transshipments,” Skyview said (Skyview Cabinet USA v. United States, CIT #22-00080).
The Court of International Trade ruled that the U.S. can't file a counterclaim in a customs case brought by Second Nature Designs, according to a July 25 order by Judge Gary Katzmann (Second Nature Designs v. U.S., CIT #21-00271).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should rule against the Commerce Department's move to reject questionnaire responses submitted 30 minutes late, antidumping respondent Zhejiang Zhouli Industrial argued in a July 21 complaint. Explaining the circumstances of the late submission, Zhouli said the rejection was a "drastic measure that was not warranted" and resulted in an adverse facts available rate. It urged the court to find the rejection to be an abuse of discretion (Zhejiang Zhouli v. U.S., CIT #22-00177).
Zhe "John" Liu and GL Paper Distribution owe the U.S. nearly $1 million for evading antidumping duties on steel wire hangers from China by transshipping the wire hangers through Malaysia, the U.S. argued in a July 21 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Alleging that Liu and GL Paper negligently avoided paying the duties, the U.S. took to the trade court to seek payment of the penalties, which equals the domestic value of the steel wire hanger entries made by GL Paper in 2017 (The United States v. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT #22-00215).
The Court of International Trade in a July 25 opinion ruled that the U.S. can't file a counterclaim in a customs case brought by Second Nature Designs, redenominating the counterclaim seeking a different Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading for various decorative items as a defense. Adopting the court's recent decision in a separate customs case, Judge Gary Katzmann held that there is no statutory basis for the U.S. to file a counterclaim. However, the judge granted the U.S.' bid to amend its answer to Second Nature's complaint to incorporate the arguments found in its counterclaim, finding the plaintiff's arguments unconvincing. The importer said the amendment is barred by the finality of liquidation, illegal on Constitutional grounds and unreasonably prejudicial.
The Commerce Department was not justified in using adverse facts available in an antidumping duty review on respondent Xinjiang Meihua Amino Acid Co. since the respondent was fully cooperative and there was no gap in the record, consolidated plaintiff Jianlong Biotechnology Co. argued in a July 19 brief at the Court of International Trade. Further, there is not record evidence supporting the fact that the 77.04% dumping margin Commerce assigned to the non-individually examined companies "reflects in any way the dumping rate of the cooperative separate rate respondents," Jianlong Biotechnology argued (Meihua Group International Trading (Hong Kong) v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00069).
A recent Court of International Trade opinion finding that the U.S. cannot assert a counterclaim in customs classification litigation "is persuasive" in importer Second Nature Designs' case, the plaintiff argued in a July 20 notice of supplemental authority at the trade court. In Second Nature's case, the importer is seeking a different classification for its dried botanical entries. The U.S. has argued it can file counterclaims seeking its own preferred classification of the dried botanicals (see 2203230024). In the recent CIT opinion, Judge Claire Kelly held that the U.S. cannot make counterclaims in customs cases because there is no statutory authority to do so, redenominating the counterclaim as a defense (see 2207200052). Second Nature said in its notice that while the opinion is not binding, it's persuasive over the U.S.'s ability to assert a counterclaim (Second Nature Designs v. U.S., CIT #21-00271).