A U.S. motion to dismiss an importer's challenge of the way CBP handled liquidation after a prior disclosure amounts to a “mischaracterization” of its complaint, and the Court of International Trade also had jurisdiction over the case pursuant to the Customs Courts Act of 1980, the importer said (Larson-Juhl US v. U.S., CIT # 23-00032).
Exporter Tau-Ken Temir (TKT) and Kazakhstan's Ministry of Trade and Integration argued in a Feb. 12 reply brief that the Commerce Department doesn't have "essentially total discretion to decide deadlines and acceptance of filings." Responding to claims from the U.S. at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, TKT and the Kazakh ministry said the government didn't claim that any prejudice would have resulted from granting TKT's one-day extension request, which would have absolved the company from missing a filing deadline in a countervailing duty proceeding by 90 minutes (Tau-Ken Temir v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).
Georgia woman Skeeter-Jo Stoute-Francois filed suit at the Court of International Trade Feb. 16 to contest six questions on the October 2021 customs broker license exam. In her complaint, Stoute-Francois said that after appealing the test results to the Treasury Department, she was left just short of the 75% grade needed to pass the test, failing at 73.75% (Skeeter-Jo Stoute-Francois v. U.S., CIT # 24-00046).
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 15 said companies that submit requests for administrative review in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings can intervene as a matter of right at the Court of International Trade.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 5-11:
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 15 said companies that submit requests for administrative review in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings can intervene as a matter of right at the Court of International Trade.
The Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) for CBP will next meet March 6 remotely and in person in Charleston, South Carolina, CBP said in a notice. Comments are due in writing by March 1.
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 13 dismissed an antidumping duty case brought by exporter Oman Fasteners for lack of prosecution. Mario Toscano, clerk of the court, said that no complaint was filed "within the period" laid out by 19 U.S.C. 1516a, which says an interested party may file a summons and complaint within 30 days of a determination from the Commerce Department. Oman Fasteners brought the suit to contest the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from Oman in which it received a zero percent dumping margin. No separate lawsuit was filed by the petitioner in the review, Mid Continent Steel & Wire (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT # 24-00008).
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 12 sustained the Commerce Department's use of facts available for antidumping duty respondent Euro SME's inland freight costs for its U.S. sales. Judge Stephen Vaden said that contrary to the exporter's claim that Commerce "threw the book at it," the agency "acted with deliberation, patience, and arguably stayed its hand when it could have drawn adverse inferences more broadly against such a seasoned respondent."
Industry is calling on the FCC to revise a robocall item, set for a commissioner vote Thursday, which codifies some robocall and robotexting rules while asking about applying protections in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to communications from wireless carriers to their own subscribers (see 2401250068). Industry officials told us they’re not certain the FCC will make the changes they seek, though they expect tweaks.