The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 13 order dismissed importer Kuester Systems Mexico's customs case on the classification of the company's motor vehicle parts. The trade court case was a protective filing while the company negotiated with CBP, S. Richard Shostak, counsel for Kuester, said in an email to Trade Law Daily. CBP allowed a related protest, recognizing the importer's claim that the goods qualified for duty-free NAFTA treatment, Shostak said. The CIT suit concerned certain motor vehicle parts classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8708.29.5160 (Kuester Systems Mexico S de RL v. U.S., CIT # 22-00331).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Oct. 9-15:
CBP Withholding Communications on Past Classification Decisions, Importer Argues in Motion to Compel
The government should be ordered to produce unredacted documents for inspection by the judge and be ordered to disclose additional statements not reflecting protected deliberations in a case concerning the classification of intelligent window shade machines, Lutron Electronics said in its Oct. 13 motion to compel at the Court of International Trade. Lutron is seeking information related to former CBP employees and communications regarding decision-making in the classification process. Lutron said it fulfilled its obligation in attempting to resolve the dispute in good faith before filing its motion (Lutron Electronics v. U.S., CIT # 22-00264).
US Offers 'Desperate Reaches' to Fend Off Injunction in Case on UFLPA Entity Listing, Company Argues
The U.S. failed to fulfill its "simple but fundamental obligation to explain itself" in a lawsuit brought by a Chinese printer cartridge maker challenging its addition to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, the company, Ninestar Corp., said in a reply brief supporting its motion for a preliminary injunction against the listing. Ninestar dubbed the government's response to the PI motion a series of "distractions and desperate reaches," including the U.S. claim that the Court of International Trade lacks jurisdiction because a presumptive ban on Ninestar's goods is not an "embargo" (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. opposed an expedited briefing schedule from Chinese printer cartridge manufacturer Ninestar Corp. in the company's case against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Ninestar's motion would hold the government's motion to dismiss in abeyance pending resolution of the company's bid for a preliminary injunction. The U.S. said "it is reversible error for the Court to delay consideration of its jurisdiction until after ruling on the motion for a preliminary injunction" (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The International Trade Commission "failed to maintain the integrity of its own proceedings" when it found that freight rail couplers from China and Mexico injured the domestic industry despite an earlier finding to the contrary, importer Strato argued in an Oct. 11 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Strato v. U.S., CIT # 23-00158).