The Court of International Trade extended to all unassigned cases a preliminary injunction halting the liquidation of unliquidated entries subject to the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 China tariffs for plaintiffs in the litigation challenging the tariffs, CIT said in a July 6 order. Cases challenging the tariffs continue to trickle in to CIT and, pursuant to an April 28 order, are automatically stayed without being assigned to the master litigation. Chief Judge Mark Barnett penned the extension order shortly after dissenting from the decision to issue the preliminary injunction (see 2107060077).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated July 2 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade stayed a tariff classification case over printed circuit board assemblies used in audio-visual transmission equipment, in a July 6 order, pending the Justice Department's consideration of a settlement offer from importer Plexus Corp. CIT recently sent the case to trial after it found that it couldn't determine whether PCBAs imported by Plexus are principally used for televisions and dutiable at 2.9% or principally used for other devices, including computers and smartphones, and duty free (see 2012230084).
Kazakhstan's Ministry of Trade and Integration wanted to intervene in a countervailing duty case on silicon metal from Kazakhstan in the Court of International Trade in June. It was denied for failing to comply with CIT Rule 24 -- the rules governing intervention. In particular, the defendant-intervenors and petitioners in the underlying CVD case, Globe Specialty Metals and Mississippi Silicon, said the trade ministry failed to state the issues it wanted to litigate (see 2106110029). Now, the ministry is back in CIT, filing a "renewed motion to intervene as plaintiff-intervenor" on June 16 (Tau-Ken Temir LLP et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00173).
By subjecting aluminum extrusion importer Global Aluminum Distributor to two antidumping and countervailing duty evasion investigations for the same conduct and entries, CBP violated Global Aluminum's rights to due process, the importer said. Filing a July 2 complaint in the Court of International Trade, Global Aluminum called out the customs agency for breaking "long-standing principles of fundamental fairness" by including the importer in multiple evasion investigations under the Enforce and Protect Act -- a process already riddled with due process violations, according to the complaint (Global Aluminum Distributor LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00312).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 28 - July 4.
Use Availability Is Enough for Duty-Free Classification for Tools Temporarily Exported, Porsche Says
Tools of the trade returned after temporary use abroad do not have to been actually used to be eligible for duty-free treatment under subheading 9801.00.85 Porsche Motorsports North America, said in a reply brief filed June 25. CBP has ruled in the past that it’s enough for goods to be made available for use to qualify for duty-free treatment, PMNA said in the brief, filed in support of its motion for judgment in a case at the Court of International Trade (Porsche Motorsports North America, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 16-00182).
A domestic manufacturer seeks the imposition of new antidumping and countervailing duties on urea ammonium nitrate solutions from Russia and Trinidad and Tobago, they said in petitions filed with the Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission June 30. Commerce will now decide whether to begin AD/CVD investigations, which could result in the imposition of permanent AD/CV duty orders and the assessment of AD and CV duties on importers. The petition was filed by CF Industries Nitrogen and its subsidiaries Terra Nitrogen and Terra International (Oklahoma).
Vivint intends to “vigorously defend” against ADT allegations that its SkyControl panel and Smart Hub violate patents 8,976,937 and 9,286,772 belonging to ADT, it said Wednesday, after ADT filed a complaint (in Pacer) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas Tuesday. ADT also filed a companion case with the International Trade Commission. “Vivint launched its SkyControl Panel and related products with the express desire, in the words of its former CEO, to ‘control anything and everything inside the home,’” said ADT Chief Legal Officer David Smail in a statement: “Apparently Vivint also meant ‘by any means necessary.’” Vivint infringes ADT patents covering predictive analytics, detection and diagnostics, and advanced user interfaces including voice control, Smail said, “to gain an unfair advantage in the smart home security and automation market.” By defending its patents, “ADT is determined to protect its employees, its customers, its products, and its reputation,” he said. ADT asked the ITC for an exclusion order prohibiting Vivint from importing products that allegedly infringe on its patents, and asked the court for a finding of infringement plus damages, fees and other relief. Vivint believes the claims asserted are “completely without merit and that the complaint is a reactionary countersuit” to a patent infringement complaint Vivint filed in February against ADT in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah asserting ADT infringed six Vivint patents. That case is ongoing.