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).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit affirmed a federal district court's decision to dismiss a challenge to the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's enforcement of a federal gasoline-volatility regulation on a duty-free gas station on the Canadian border. The regulation applies to Ammex's gas station, even though the gas station sells gas only for export because cars must drive into Canada after filling up, the appeals court said (Ammex v. Gary McDowell, 6th Cir. #20-1250).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
State marijuana legalization laws do not create an exemption to the federal ban on importation of drug paraphernalia, the Department of Justice said in a Jan. 31 filing at the Court of International Trade. Arguing against an importer's motion for judgment in the case, as well as its own cross-motion for judgment in November (see 2111100047), DOJ says an exemption from the federal ban at 21 USC 863 for any "person authorized by local, state, or federal law to manufacture, possess, or distribute such item" is not triggered by state laws that legalize marijuana across the board (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, CIT #21-00287).
The Court of International Trade should throw out Wheatland Tube's case intended to compel CBP to respond to the company's requests for information and a tariff classification ruling because Wheatland has received all the relief to which it is legally entitled, the Department of Justice said in a Feb. 2 motion to dismiss the case. CBP has already responded to this RFI and the petition for a tariff classification ruling over the company's electrical conduits from Mexico, DOJ said. CBP also told Wheatland it agrees with the company's stance on the correct classification of its steel conduit pipe and was defending this position in separate litigation (Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00004).
OtterBox filed a complaint with the Court of International Trade on Feb. 1, seeking to reclaim interest on tariffs it paid as part of prior disclosures on entries that have since been reclassified in its favor. Ottberbox argues that CBP has incorrectly withheld interest when returning overpayments after CIT ruled in OtterBox's favor in a tariff classification case on cellphone cases. The complaint accuses CBP of stalling in its obligation to “refund all duties overpaid, plus interest, as provided by law.”