The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Challenge to Lack of Section 301 Refund Not an Entry-Specific Matter, Importers Tell Federal Circuit
A CBP protest was not needed to establish jurisdiction in two companies' challenge to CBP's assessment of Section 301 tariffs on goods subsequently granted a tariff exclusion since the challenge is not an entry-specific matter, the companies, ARP Materials and Harrison Steel, said in a Feb. 7 brief. Replying to the U.S.'s arguments at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the plaintiff-appellants said that their challenge has jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the trade court's "residual" jurisdiction provision, since the action relates to CBP's imposition of the requirements of an "inapt statute" to all the entries excluded from tariff lists 2 and 3 (ARP Materials Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2176).
Mobi Telecom and its owner Davinder Singh "purposefully allow robocallers to use their service" to place illegal robocalls by using "ruses to appear on recipients’ telephones as coming from U.S. and even local phone numbers," Frontier and its subsidiaries, Southern New England Telephone Company and SNET America, told the U.S. District Court of Connecticut in a complaint filed Tuesday in case 3:22-cv-00218. Frontier alleged the Wyoming VoIP provider is using its services to place spoofed calls to Frontier's landline consumers in Connecticut and has "never implemented the robocaller mitigation program it publicly committed to implement, and the FCC has noted that Mobi Telecom, LLC has been non-responsive." Singh's company is "so far divorced from the norm and what is required under the law and FCC regulations" that it's "clear that they are intentionally and recklessly ratifying the illegal conduct of robocallers in an attempt to compete unfairly, interfere with other voice service providers’ contracts, facilitate violations of the law, including those related to unfair and deceptive trade practices and consumer protection," the complaint said. Frontier said "hundreds" of its customers have terminated their landline service "in part because of harassment from robocallers," and sought a jury trial. Mobi couldn't be reached for comment.
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 8 consolidated two cases filed by Incase Design Group. The order follows a motion by Incase to combine the cases because it would "promote administrative and judicial efficiency." Both cases involve the same product and are being considered by the same judge. They also concern the same underlying issue: whether "the proper classification of sports armband cell phone holders" is under subheading 4202.99.90 as "... containers ... of sheeting of plastics ... ," dutiable at 20%, or under subheading 3926.90.99 as "other articles of plastics ..., ," dutiable at 5.3%. Judge Stephen Vaden granted Incase's request, as it would "promote the just, speedy, and less expensive determination of this action." The combined cases proceed as number 16-00267.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade consolidated two cases filed by BASF. The decision to consolidate follows a motion by BASF to combine the cases in the interests of avoiding "unnecessary costs or delay." Both cases involve the same product and the same underlying matter of law: whether a formulated beta-carotene product used by BASF’s customers as a source of provitamin A is classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2936.90.01 as “Provitamins, unmixed,” duty free, or subheading 2106.90.99, as “Food preparations not elsewhere specified or included: Other: Other: Other: Other: Other: Other: Other.,” dutiable at the rate of 6.4%. Judge Richard Eaton granted BASF's request, as it would "promote the just, speedy, and less expensive determination of this action." After Feb. 7, the combined cases will proceed as number 12-00422.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 31-Feb. 6:
The Commerce Department switched its position on the countervailability of a South Korean sewerage fees program in Feb. 7 remand results, finding that the program is not countervailable. Commerce asked the Court of International Trade for a chance to reconsider the issue itself, ultimately coming back with the position that no benefit was preferred under the sewerage fees program and that the overall subsidy rate for countervailing duty respondent Hyundai Steel Company should be the de minimis rate of 0.49% (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, CIT #21-00012).
No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.
The Court of International Trade reported that it settled all issues via mediation in two cases over the Commerce Department's denial of Section 232 exclusion requests. The mediation, held by Judge Leo Gordon, was ordered after the consolidated plaintiffs' request for a status conference was denied as moot. The plaintiffs wanted the status conference to discuss the availability of a remedy for already-liquidated entries, but the specifics of mediation were not made known (N. Am. Interpipe, Inc. v. U.S., CIT #20-03825) (Allegheny Technologies Incorporated, et al. v. U.S., CIT #20-03923).