The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department complied with the Court of International Trade's remand instructions when it found that certain door thresholds qualify for the "finished merchandise" exclusion from the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, the Justice Department said in a pair of Feb. 14 reply briefs. Filing its responses in two separate cases, one brought by Columbia Aluminum Products and the other by Worldwide Door Components, Commerce said that it relied on CIT's rulings to find that the plaintiffs' door thresholds qualified for the finished merchandise exclusion while ignoring prior authorities that established that a subassembly could not qualify for the exclusion (Worldwide Door Components v. United States, CIT #19-00012) (Columbia Aluminum Products v. United States, CIT # 19-00013).
The Court of International Trade granted Turkish steel exporter Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi's motions for judgment in two cases on the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations into prestressed concrete steel wire strand from Turkey. Celik challenges the Commerce Department's refusal to accept questionnaire responses that were filed 21 and 87 minutes late in the AD and CVD cases, respectively. Judge Timothy Stanceu said the rejections amounted to an abuse of discretion and imposed a "draconian penalty" on Celik for a "minor and inadvertent technical error by its counsel that had no appreciable effect on the" investigations.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A customs broker license test taker filed suit at the Court of International Trade after two appeals of her final score on the Customs Broker License Examination failed to result in a passing grade. Filing the case without an attorney, Shuzhen Zhong wants the court to review the six questions she appealed to CBP, of which she only received credit for one upon reconsideration. Zhong took particular issue with CBP's getting both her address and gender wrong when returning the results of her appeal (Zhong v. United States, CIT #22-00041).
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: