On July 1, the Commerce Department will begin reconducting the sunset reviews on stilbenic optical brightening agents (OBAs) from Taiwan and China, after the Court of International Trade on May 28 found that the regulatory provision upon which Commerce relied to revoke the antidumping duty orders on OBAs from the two countries (see 2212280023) violated the Tariff Act.
The Court of International Trade dismissed importer Greentech Energy Solutions' challenge to antidumping and countervailing duties on Chinese solar cells to its Vietnamese solar cell entries for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction.
The Commerce Department is amending the amended final determination in the less-than-fair-value investigation on mattresses from Cambodia (A555-001), covering the period Jan. 1, 2019, through Dec. 31, 2019, based on the May 16 final decision in a court case challenging the amended final determination. To satisfy the Court of International Trade, Commerce recalculated the weighted-average dumping margin for Best Mattresses/Rose Lion, and that resulted in the margin changing from 52.4% to 103.79%. Because of that change, the dumping margin applicable to all other companies also changed from 52.41% to 103.79%.
The Court of International Trade on June 12 rejected customs broker Seko Customs Brokerage's motion for an expedited briefing schedule on its motion for an injunction in its suit against CBP's suspension of the company from participation in the Entry Type 86 and Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism programs (Seko Customs Brokerage v. U.S., CIT # 24-00097).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 3-9:
Customs broker Seko Logistics asked the Court of International Trade on June 7 for expedited briefing in its suit against CBP's suspension of the company from Type 86 filing and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism. Seko said greater delay in the case "deprives the requested relief of much of its value" and sets "extraordinary hardship" on the broker (Seko Customs Brokerage v. U.S., CIT # 24-00097).
The Court of International Trade on June 10 signaled that CBP's practice of not notifying companies when they become subject to interim Enforce and Protect Act investigations could give rise to a due process claim should the company sufficiently allege that it suffered "specific enough harm." However, the court found that importer Phoenix Metal failed to allege that harm with enough specificity.
Seko Logistics will still pursue its lawsuit challenging CBP's suspension of the company from Type 86 filing and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, despite CBP's conditional reinstatement of the customs broker, according to a June 4 statement from the company. The Chicago-area customs broker and freight forwarder says CBP still hasn’t fully provided its reasons for Seko’s initial suspension.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 27 - June 2:
Seko, a customs brokerage based in Illinois that can no longer file Type 86 entries after CBP suspended it from the program last week, is asking the Court of International Trade to force CBP to reinstate it through an injunction.