The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 9-15:
The Commerce Department failed to consider whether U.S. Steel Corp. had the capacity to fill the aggregate of importer California Steel Industries' Section 232 steel tariff exclusion requests as opposed to just assessing whether U.S. Steel could fill all of them individually, the Court of International Trade held on Nov. 13. Judge M. Miller Baker added that Commerce didn't address its concession that it couldn't timely supply more slab than contracted for with California Steel.
CBP has released its Dec. 11 Customs Bulletin (Vol. 58, No. 49), which contains no ruling actions but includes a notice that CBP granted Proctor & Gamble Lever rule protection against importations of certain anti-dandruff shampoo and conditioner products manufactured in Germany that bear the federally registered and recorded “HEAD & SHOULDERS” trademark. It also includes a notice reminding customs brokers that the annual user fee for 2025 is due no later than Jan. 31. Three Court of International Trade slip opinions also are included.
A three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit told the Court of International Trade that it has now twice wrongly told an importer that its first-sale price method to determine the duty level of its cookware was prohibited.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 2-8:
Importer Fine Emeralds will get refunds for duties paid on its rough, unworked emerald stones, the company announced in a stipulated judgment filed on Dec. 9 at the Court of International Trade. While the emeralds were assessed 10.5% duties under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7103.10.40, the government agreed to classify the products under subheading 7103.10.20, free of duty. Fine Emeralds' preferred subheading covers uncorked precious stones (Fine Emeralds v. U.S., CIT # 20-03928).
Court-ordered reliquidations aren't actions taken by CBP and can't be protested, the government said in oral arguments held Dec. 6 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. As a result, the Federal Circuit doesn't have jurisdiction to hear Target's appeal of a liquidation ordered by CIT, the U.S. said (Target v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2274).
Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 4 questioned importer Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) and the government regarding the tariff classification of frozen fruit mixtures. Judge Todd Hughes led the bulk of the questioning, pushing Nature's Touch on how to classify the goods if the court finds that the mixtures aren't food preparations, as claimed by the company, and how they should be classified instead under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 0811, which covers certain frozen fruit (Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2093).
CBP has released its Dec. 4 Customs Bulletin (Vol. 58, No. 48), which contains no ruling actions but includes a notice of the revocation of U.S. Virgin Islands-based AmSpec as a customs-accredited laboratory and customs-approved gauger. It also includes three Court of International Trade slip opinions.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of Nov. 18-24 and Nov. 25 - Dec. 1: