CBP no longer believes importers Global Aluminum Distributor and Hialeah Aluminum Supply evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China by transshipping them through Dominican manufacturer Kingtom Aluminio. Filing its remand results at the Court of International Trade in a case related to the Enforce and Protect Act investigation, CBP said that after taking another look at the record, it cannot conclude that evasion took place (Global Aluminum Distributor v. United States, CIT #21-00198).
FORT LAUDERDALE -- Delays drawback filers are seeing in claims processing are related to a variety of factors, including a reorganization of CBP’s drawback staff and understaffing at certain key drawback centers, but importers can follow certain best practices to speed the process along, CBP officials and drawback experts said during a panel discussion June 15.
The Court of International Trade should rule in favor of importer Second Nature in its case challenging CBP classification of its imported dried botanicals, the importer said in a June 14 brief (Second Nature Designs Ltd. v. United States, CIT #17-00271). The importer asked the court for a summary judgment classifying all subject merchandise under subheading 0604.90.30 as dried or bleached, regardless of a subsequent dying and painting process, and reliquidating the entries duty-free.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers filed an amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in a case over whether Japanese manufacturer Sigma Corporation, along with other companies, is guilty of violating the False Claims Act for not paying antidumping duties. The two trade groups argued that businesses that act consistently with a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous regulation lack the "requisite False Claims Act scienter" and that the district court should have said there was no obligation to pay the duties given that the duties are not owed on the imports at issue (Island Industries, et al. v. Sigma Corporation, 9th Cir. # 22-55063).
Plaintiffs in an antidumping case failed to exhaust their administrative remedies when challenging the Commerce Department's decision to issue a questionnaire in lieu of on-site verification due to COVID-19 travel restrictions, the Court of International Trade ruled in a June 14 opinion. Judge Stephen Vaden said that the AD petitioner, Ellwood City Forge Co., had "multiple opportunities" to counter the verification methodology, but failed to do so administratively.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 6-12:
The International Trade Commission has terminated a Section 337 investigation into residential security systems, it said in a notice. The case (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1273) followed a June 2021 complaint by ADT, alleging that two of its patents on residential security monitoring and automation control panels were being violated by Vivint. Over the course of the investigation, one of the patents was dropped from the complaint. Vivint asked the ITC for summary determination of no violation on March 10, 2022. The ITC's Office of Unfair Import Investigations agreed with Vivint and ITC administrative law judge Monica Bhattacharyya issued her initial determination on April 22, finding no violation by Vivint. ADT filed a petition for review but on June 8, the commission declined to review Bhattacharyya's decision and terminated the investigation.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The government may only file counterclaims at the Court of International Trade in cases that involve imported merchandise, NetJets said in a June 8 motion seeking dismissal of a DOJ counterclaim seeking liquidated damages from the company for its failure to collect customs user fees (CUFs) for airline ticket purchases (NetJets Aviation, Inc. v. U.S., CIT #21-00142).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 10 order invited the U.S. to file an amicus brief in a case on whether the Commerce Department can conduct expedited countervailing duty reviews. The plaintiff-appellants, led by Fontaine Inc., filed their opening brief in February, seeking statutory cover for Commerce to perform the expedited reviews (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1021).