The government should not be allowed a second extension in a classification case to respond to an expert witness report, HyAxiom said in a motion filed April 20 with the Court of International Trade. DOJ has "not yet decided whether they intend to respond to HyAxiom’s Expert Report, let alone retained a rebuttal expert," which, the motion argues, is "effectively putting on pause HyAxiom’s ability to complete its discovery" and, if granted, would prejudice HyAxiom, formerly known as Doosan Fuel Cell America, by forcing it to rearrange its litigation strategy, the importer said. The case stems from a February 2021 complaint by Doosan Fuel Cell America that challenged the reclassification of a steam methane reformer and subsequent denial of protest by CBP. CBP classified the reformer under HTS subheading 8503.00.9550 (3%). Doosan claims the proper subheading is 8405.10.0000 (free).
Antidumping duty petitioner Wheatland Tube Co. failed to rebut plaintiff Borusan Mannesmann's motion that no substantial question remains regarding Wheatland's appeal of an antidumping duty case related to a particular market adjustment, Borusan said in an April 20 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Since the Federal Circuit in a separate case found that particular market situation adjustments cannot be made to the sales-below-cost test, the issue is "completed," so the court should affirm Borusan's motion for summary affirmance, the brief said (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2097).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Mixes of frozen fruits should be classified as food preparations of heading 2106, rather than in the heading in Chapter 8 for fruit deemed to impart the mixture's essential character, an importer said in a motion for summary judgment filed with the Court of International Trade April 18 (Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) Inc. v. United States, CIT #20-00131).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 11-17:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department continued to rely on adverse facts available in a countervailing duty case on remand at the Court of International Trade, holding that respondent Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi failed to act to the best of its ability when providing certain information about a Turkish government subsidiary. While it dropped AFA over Celik Halat's Section III of the initial CVD questionnaire, as instructed by the court, the agency still used AFA over Celik Halat's failure to respond to the Standard Questions Appendix of the Tax Program Appendix for the subsidy (Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi A.S. v. U.S., CIT #21-00050).
A Mexican union and a U.S. nonprofit have jointly filed a rapid response complaint against Panasonic Automotive's plant in Reynosa, Mexico. The Sindicato Nacional Independiente de Trabajadores de Industrias y de Servicios "Movimiento 20/32" (SNITIS) says more than 600 workers at the plant asked for SNITIS to be their new union, but the company is collaborating with a Confederación de Trabajadores de México (CTM) union. According to the complaint, there are about 2,000 workers at the plant, who make audio systems and screens for automobiles that are exported to the U.S. and to other markets.
The U.S. was granted a voluntary remand in an antidumping duty and countervailing duty evasion case at the Court of International Trade. In its motion requesting the remand, CBP told the court that a remand is needed in light of arguments by the plaintiffs that the evasion finding is based on insufficient evidence. In particular, DOJ said that CBP needed to address logistical gaps in the feasibility of an alleged transshipment scheme and criticism of perceived inconsistencies in the materials submitted by the importers and the company accused of transshipping. Each of the three plaintiffs' counsel consented to the move (Global Aluminum Distributor LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00198).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: