The Commerce Department filed Oct. 25 for a voluntary remand of a Section 232 exclusion case with the consent of the counsel for the plaintiff, importer CPW America Co., at the Court of International Trade. Finding that the remand would expedite the case's resolution, Commerce said that because the case involves only one exclusion request, the agency would be able to reconsider the exclusion within the standard 90-day remand period (CPW America Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00335).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Oct. 18-24:
ITC Can Protect Trademarks, Not Just Patents, Panel Says; Also Hope for Anti-Counterfeit Legislation
With too many small packages to inspect, and Instagram and other social media influencers promoting knockoffs, fashion brands are dealing with a challenging environment. But panelists on a Crowell & Moring webinar Oct. 26 called "The Year of the Knockoff" found some reason for hope.
Anonymous solar producers still have yet to justify their requests for anti-circumvention inquiries on solar cells from Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand, so the Commerce Department should decline to initiate the inquiries altogether, said NextEra and Florida Power & Light in their Oct. 25 response to additional information submitted by the producers nearly two weeks prior.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Labor Department properly considered all of the evidence when it continued to find that a unionized group of former AT&T call center employees are not entitled to trade adjustment assistance for outsourced jobs, the department said in an Oct. 20 reply brief filed at the Court of International Trade. Responding to accusations from the workers, Labor said what plaintiffs failed to do was point to any evidence that Labor failed to consider, the brief said (Communications Workers of America Local 4123, on behalf of Former Employees of AT&T Services, Inc. v. United States Secretary of Labor, CIT #20-00075).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should reconsider its dismissals of multiple classification lawsuits over LED lamps because the events that resulted in the dismissals constituted "excusable neglect," counsel for Target and other LED importers argued in an Oct. 15 motion. In 10 cases making the classification challenge, the plaintiffs' counsel, John Peterson of Neville Peterson, argued that the plaintiffs' failure to extend the case's stay on the Customs Case Management Calendar "reasonably resulted from events both practical and circumstantial" (Target General Merchandise, Inc. v. United States, CIT #14-00283).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Composite Technology International filed a trio of complaints at the Court of International Trade on Oct. 20 challenging CBP's tariff classification of its wooden stile and rail imports. When it denied Composite's protests, CBP pointed to a prior CIT ruling holding that the wooden stiles and rails fall under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4421.90.97, but Composite argues for classification under subheading 4412.99.51 (Composite Technology International, Inc. v. United States, CIT #17-00175, #17-00129, #17-00178).