The Court of International Trade erred when it dismissed a case brought by importer Rimco over alleged "excessive fines" leveled by CBP for the combination of antidumping and countervailing duty rates on steel wheels from China, Rimco argued in a Nov. 14 brief before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Viewtech Inc. on Nov. 16 filed a notice of dismissal in 10 of its tariff classification cases at the Court of International Trade. Filed between 2008 and 2011, the cases concerned the classification of Viewtech's digital satellite receivers. CBP liquidated the entries under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 8528.12.97 or 8528.71.40, though the importer claimed they should be classified under subheadings 8528.12.92 or 8528.71.20 (Viewtech Inc. v. United States, CIT #s 08-00250, 08-00252, 08-00253, 08-00254, 09-00116, 09-00146, 09-00173, 09-00419, 10-00112, 11-00008).
Plaintiff GreenFirst Forest Products submitted a notice of supplemental authority in a Court of International Trade case over the Commerce Department's refusal to initiate a successor-in-interest changed circumstances review (CCR) in a countervailing duty case. In the notice, GreenFirst alerted the court to its filing of a CCR request to find that GreenFirst is the successor-in-interest to Rayonier A.M. Canada (RYAM) in a related antidumping case. After filing in the AD case, Commerce found that information submitted supports starting a successor-in-interest CCR for AD purposes (GreenFirst Forest v. U.S., CIT #22-00097).
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 16 released the public version of its Nov. 15 opinion dismissing a conflict-of-interest suit filed by plaintiffs led by Amsted Rail Company seeking to removeDaniel Pickard and his firm Buchanan Ingersoll from an International Trade Commission injury proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Judge Gary Katzmann ruled that while the court does have the jurisdiction to review the ITC's decision to grant Pickard and Buchanan access to business proprietary information (BPI), it does not have this jurisdiction under Section 1581(i) -- the court's "residual" jurisdiction. The judge left the door open for the plaintiffs to refile their case under Section 1581(c) "once a claim under" this provision "is ripe."
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Size-reduction machinery should be classified as duty-free machines for "crushing, grinding, or screening" rather than as "other electromechanical" machines, dutiable at 2.5%, importer Vecoplan said in a Nov. 14 motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade (Vecoplan v. United States # 20-00126).
The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 15 judgment dismissed Amsted Rail's conflict-of-interest case against its former counsel for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Concurrently filing a confidential opinion but a public order, Judge Gary Katzmann said the plaintiffs can refile under Section 1581(c). The case was originally filed under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction (Amsted Rail v. U.S., CIT #22-00307).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of Oct. 31 - Nov. 6 and Nov. 7-13:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: