The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 1 order dismissed a customs case filed by California Manufacturing and Engineering Co. for lack of prosecution. The action challenged CBP's denial of its protest claiming that the importer's electric aerial work platforms should be classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8427.10.8010 rather than 8427.90.0000, qualifying for exclusions from the Section 301 tariffs under secondary subheading 9903.88.19. The case previously was placed on the customs case management calendar and not removed before the expiration of the "applicable period of time of removal" (California Manufacturing and Engineering Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00028).
Richmond International Forest Products has asked the Court of International Trade to force CBP to turn over documents in an Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) case to which Richmond was not a party, according to a Jan. 31 brief (Richmond International Forest Products Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00318).
The Commerce Department stuck by its decision not to investigate the alleged off-peak sale of electricity for less than adequate remuneration and not to treat POSCO Plantec -- an affiliate of countervailing duty respondent POSCO -- as a cross-owned input supplier of POSCO. Submitting its remand results to the Court of International Trade on Jan. 31, Commerce said that the subsidy allegation over the provision of off-peak electricity "did not provide sufficient evidence of a benefit for Commerce to initiate on the allegation," and that the inputs provided by POSCO Planted were not mainly dedicated to downstream product production (Nucor Corp. v. United States, CIT # 21-00182).
Sunnyvale Seafood has dropped two cases at the Court of International Trade concerning imported fish fillets brought in 2021, according to two separate motions filed Jan. 31. The cases challenged CBP's denial of Sunnyvale's protests over the applicability of Section 301 tariffs to its frozen tilapia fillets imported under subheading 0304.61.0000. Sunnyvale had argued that it should have been excluded from Section 301 tariffs via a product exclusion under subheading 9903.88.43. Sunnyvale did not comment when asked about the dismissals (SSC, Inc. v. United States, CIT # 21-00024, -00555).
The I.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 31 order gave plaintiff-appellants Tau-Ken Temir and Kazakhstan's Ministry of Trade and Integration an extra two weeks to file their opening brief in a countervailing duty case. The appellants now have until Feb. 14 to file the opening brief, while the appellees -- the U.S. and petitioners Globe Specialty Metals and Mississippi Silicon -- have until May 22 to file their responses (Tau-Ken Temir v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 23-29:
The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 30 order gave importer Wanxiang America an additional 2,000 words for its upcoming reply brief as it seeks to dismiss a $100 million customs penalty case. Wanxiang America had asked for an extra 3,000 words, arguing that the extra words will give the court "a more complete understanding of Defendant's argument as to (a) why the Government cannot, as a matter of law, establish any Section 1592 violation and (b) the Government’s case against the Defendant amounts to significant Government overreach by Customs" (see 2301270079) (United States v. Wanxiang America, CIT # 22-00205).
Protests seeking refunds for granted exclusions from Section 232 tariffs must be filed in a timely manner, even when the process is complicated by government errors, the DOJ argued in a Jan. 27 motion to dismiss at the Court of International Trade (SXP Schulz Xtruded Products v. United States, CIT # 22-00136).
The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 27 order let the Commerce Department add a questionnaire deficiencies analysis to the record in an antidumping duty case. The order said the memorandum is appropriately part of the record because the agency used it in coming up with the review's final results. Judge Stephen Vaden held that omitting the analysis would "frustrate judicial review," and that, despite respondent Grupo Simec's claims, Commerce did not act in bad faith by leaving the review off the record.