Protests are not a prerequisite for Section 301 refunds on goods retroactively excluded from the duties on them and the government overstepped its authority in imposing such a requirement, Environment One argued in an Aug. 18 brief at the Court of International Trade (Environment One Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 22-00124).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Mirror Metals and the Commerce Department need more time to work out the details of refunding Section 232 duties following Commerce's decision to grant retroactive tariff exclusion bids, according to an Aug. 22 status report filed with the Court of International Trade (Mirror Metals v. U.S., CIT #21-00144).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade will put a temporary hold on liquidation of entries of aluminum extrusions imported by Kingtom Aluminio while it considers a preliminary injunction requested by a domestic industry group, it said in an Aug. 18 order (Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee v. United States, CIT # 22-00236).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The misclassification of 543 entries of metal lids was simple negligence, not a fraudulent scheme, importer Crown Cork & Seal said in its motion to dismiss parts of an amended government complaint. The motion asks the court to dismiss counts of fraud and gross negligence, leaving only the negligence count (United States v. Crown Cork & Seal, USA, CIT #21-00361).
The Commerce Department erred in its calculations when assigning countervailing duty rates in an administrative review on multilayered wood flooring from China, according to three separate complaints filed at the Court of International Trade. The complaints, all filed on Aug. 17, primarily challenge Commerce's findings of less than adequate remuneration (LTAR) in calculating duty rates and adverse facts applied to the government of China.
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 18 upheld the Commerce Department’s decision to apply facts available to production costs for a French steel plate exporter unable to distinguish between costs for its prime and non-prime merchandise, but again remanded the agency’s determination to use sales prices as a stand-in.