A protest of a CBP decision must be filed within 180 days of liquidation and not the date the Commerce Department issues antidumping and countervailing duty instructions to CBP or the date CBP denies an importer's refund request, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in a Feb. 6 opinion. Upholding a Court of International Trade decision, judges Timothy Dyk, Richard Taranto and Todd Hughes dismissed a case from importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, that challenges a CBP assessment of countervailing duties, on the grounds that the company failed to file a protest.
The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 2 order remanded the Commerce Department's final results in the second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China, pursuant to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's mandate in the case (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. United States, CIT # 19-00069).
Conservation groups Sea Shepherd New Zealand and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society moved to toss one count of their complaint in a case seeking an import ban on certain fish taken from New Zealand's West coast North Island multispecies set-net and trawl fisheries. The plaintiffs filed a partial motion to dismiss at the Court of International Trade on Feb. 2, arguing that the third count of the complaint, which is a challenge to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 2020 comparability findings on this area in New Zealand's waters, is moot since the findings expired at the end of 2022 (Sea Shepherd New Zealand v. United States, CIT #20-00112).
The Commerce Department's recent remand decision not to treat a countervailing duty respondent's supplier as a cross-owned input supplier is relevant for exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret's case at the Court of International Trade, the exporter argued. Filing a notice of supplemental authority on Feb. 2, Kaptan said that Commerce's remand decision in Nucor Corp. v. U.S. is "at odds with Commerce's analysis in the instant case" (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 21-00565).
Fourteen months after proponents of cellular-vehicle-to-everything use of the 5.9 GHz band asked the FCC for the first waivers so they could start to deploy (see 2112140070), action appears imminent. The FCC has drafted a waiver order, but it’s still at the NTIA for review, officials confirmed. Industry is also still waiting for final rules for the 5.9 GHz band.
Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari in a Feb. 2 brief at the Court of International Trade railed against U.S. Steel's bid to intervene in a case challenging the International Trade Commission's decision not to review an antidumping injury proceeding. The exporter said that U.S. Steel Corp. filed for intervention under the wrong legal standard since the case was established under Section 1581(i), the trade court's "residual" jurisdiction, and not Section 1581(c). Even if this point were irrelevant, Erdemir said the court should still prevent U.S. Steel (USSC) from intervening in the case since it was not a proper party to the underlying proceeding (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. United States, CIT # 22-00349).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 1 order dismissed a customs case filed by California Manufacturing and Engineering Co. for lack of prosecution. The action challenged CBP's denial of its protest claiming that the importer's electric aerial work platforms should be classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8427.10.8010 rather than 8427.90.0000, qualifying for exclusions from the Section 301 tariffs under secondary subheading 9903.88.19. The case previously was placed on the customs case management calendar and not removed before the expiration of the "applicable period of time of removal" (California Manufacturing and Engineering Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00028).
Richmond International Forest Products has asked the Court of International Trade to force CBP to turn over documents in an Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) case to which Richmond was not a party, according to a Jan. 31 brief (Richmond International Forest Products Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00318).
The Commerce Department stuck by its decision not to investigate the alleged off-peak sale of electricity for less than adequate remuneration and not to treat POSCO Plantec -- an affiliate of countervailing duty respondent POSCO -- as a cross-owned input supplier of POSCO. Submitting its remand results to the Court of International Trade on Jan. 31, Commerce said that the subsidy allegation over the provision of off-peak electricity "did not provide sufficient evidence of a benefit for Commerce to initiate on the allegation," and that the inputs provided by POSCO Planted were not mainly dedicated to downstream product production (Nucor Corp. v. United States, CIT # 21-00182).