Section 232 national security tariffs are not remedial and are in fact ordinary customs duties, meaning they should be deducted from an antidumping duty respondent's U.S. price, the U.S. argued in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Responding to exporter Nippon Steel Corporation's arguments attempting to overturn the trade court's prior ruling on the issue in three other cases, DOJ argued that Section 232 duties are imposed to address imports that threaten national security and not to boost the economic welfare of U.S. industries, making them non-remedial (Nippon Steel Corporation v. United States, CIT #21-00533).
The U.S. urged the Court of International Trade to sustain the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty case accepting minutes-late submissions, given that no party filed comments opposing the remand. Submitting its May 5 comments at CIT, DOJ said Commerce fully followed court instructions in accepting the late submissions and reverting to partial adverse facts available rather than full AFA (Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi v. U.S., CIT #21-00045).
The Court of International Trade should disregard the government's motion to dismiss steel importer Rimco's challenge to the antidumping and countervailing duties it paid, Rimco argued in a May 4 reply brief. Since the importer's case is really a constitutional challenge over excessive fines, Rimco argued that it properly filed its action as a response to CBP's assessment of the AD/CVD rather than the Commerce Department's calculations of the duties (Rimco v. United States, CIT #21-00537).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
8th Amendment AD/CVD Challenge Should Be Tossed for Lack of Jurisdiction, Proposed Intervenor Argues
The Court of International Trade should toss steel importer Rimco's challenge to the antidumping and countervailing duties it paid for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, proposed defendant-intervenor Accuride argued in a May 4 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The case should be dismissed because CIT isn't the proper jurisdiction for the importer's challenge to the Commerce Department's decisions, the company argued (Rimco v. United States, CIT #21-00537).
Washington state did not simply remove the threat of prosecution over the possession and distribution of marijuana and marijuana "paraphernalia," and in fact legalized it, making importer Keirton USA's import of marijuana "drug paraphernalia" legal, the importer argued in a May 2 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. CBP tried to argue that the importation of such paraphernalia was illegal since Washington merely decriminalized possession of the materials rather than legalizing it. Keirton argued that this is untrue and that CBP admitted as much in a headquarters ruling (Keirton USA v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CIT #21-00452).
The U.S. defended its expert witness in a customs classification dispute from a motion to remove the witness, Dr. Athanasios Meliopoulos, in a May 2 brief filed at the Court of International Trade. DOJ said that Meliopoulos is "eminently qualified" to give his opinion on a key question in the case -- whether the imported electrical conduit tubing is lined with insulating materials -- and that his testimony is admissible since it is relevant to resolving this key factual dispute in the matter at hand (Shamrock Building Materials v. United States, CIT #20-00074).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 25 - May 1:
International trade and customs law firm Neville Peterson has moved its D.C. office location, according to a notice of appearance filed in 21 of the firm's cases. As of May 1, the firm officially moved from 1400 16th St. NW to 1310 L St. NW in Washington, D.C., a lawyer with the firm confirmed.
CBP wrongly classified importer Mast Industries' ladies' knitted tops with a built-in shelf bra, Mast argued in a series of complaints on May 2 at the Court of International Trade. CBP liquidated the tops under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6109.10.00, which covers tank tops and similar garments, knitted or crocheted, made of cotton, dutiable at 18.3%, among other subheadings. Mast said that its tops should be classified under subheading 6114.20.00, which provides for other garments, knitted or crocheted, made of cotton, dutiable at 10.8% to 11.1%, among other subheadings. Mast said that its cases were similar to a series of lawsuits filed by Victoria's Secret Direct wherein the court held that "knitted outer garments which provide significant body coverage and bust support are classifiable under heading 6114, HTSUS," the complaints said (Mast Industries v. United States, CIT #01-00859, #02-00198, #02-00199, #02-00200, #03-00428, #03-00714, #03-00879, #04-00274, #05-00025, #07-00112, #07-00159, #10-00053, #10-00227, #11-00024).