The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 19-25:
Court of International Trade
The United States Court of International Trade is a federal court which has national jurisdiction over civil actions regarding the customs and international trade laws of the United States. The Court was established under Article III of the Constitution by the Customs Courts Act of 1980. The Court consists of nine judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and is located in New York City. The Court has jurisdiction throughout the United States and has exclusive jurisdictional authority to decide civil action pertaining to international trade against the United States or entities representing the United States.
No new lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 12-18.
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 9 sustained a court-ordered redetermination by the Commerce Department that found unstenciled ASTM A-513 mechanical tubing imported by Maquilacero exempt from antidumping duties on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Mexico (A-201-805). Commerce had issued the scope ruling in 2015, finding stenciling is a requirement for the mechanical tubing exemption from the AD duty order (see 1508120023). But the Federal Circuit in 2017 overturned it, holding “the imposition of a requirement (i.e., stenciling) having nothing to do with the physical characteristics of mechanical tubing” was unreasonable, given that it “does not change the inherent quality or the intended use of the product.” Commerce will instruct CBP to set the cash deposit rate to zero for entries of the 46 models of pipe from Maquilacero, and will end suspension of liquidation and liquidate all unliquidated entries at zero percent if CIT’s Feb. 9 ruling is not appealed, it said in a subsequent notice.
The Court of International Trade is proposing changes to its rules that were recommended by a CIT advisory committee. Among other amendments, CIT is proposing to shorten the time frame for service of a summons, eliminate a provision giving an extra five days to respond to a motion when the motion is electronically delivered, extend the time frames for responding to all motions accordingly, and conform CIT discovery rules to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Comments on the changes, which apply to CIT Rules 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 16, 26, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 55, 56.1, 56.2 and Administrative Order No. 02-01, are due March 8.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 5-11:
Pet carriers cannot be classified in heading 4202 of the tariff schedule as travel, sports or similar bags because pets are living things, not inanimate objects, the Court of International Trade said in a Feb. 12 decision. Pet carriers do not meet a test set in 2005 by the Federal Circuit for classification in heading 4202, CIT said, though it declined to rule on where the pet carriers should be classified until it gets more information, including on the materials that make up the pet carriers.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 29 - Feb. 4:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 22-28:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 23 affirmed a lower court ruling against the Commerce Department’s new strict policies for ending antidumping and countervailing duty reviews of foreign exporters. Agreeing with a Court of International Trade Decision issued in 2015, the CAFC held that Commerce improperly changed a rule, without the required notice-and-comment, when it said in a 2011 guidance document that it would only grant late withdrawals of requests for review in “extraordinary circumstances.” The underlying regulation directs Commerce to grant requests after the deadline when “reasonable.” An importer of glycine from China had challenged the policy when Commerce refused to end a review of its supplier, Baoding Mantong, even though both Baoding Mantong and the domestic petitioner had withdrawn their requests for the Chinese company’s review. Baoding Mantong’s withdrawal was late, and the company subsequently declined to participate in the review, so Commerce assigned it a penalty AD rate of more than 400 percent. Commerce has since amended the final results of the review under CIT order to retroactively end the review of Baoding Mantong without assigning it a new AD rate.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 15-21: