The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S.'s case looking to collect on a bond due 14 years ago is prohibited under the doctrine of impairment of suretyship, surety Aegis Security Insurance Company argued in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Since CBP "unreasonably delayed" in looking to collect on a bond that liquidated in 2006, interest liability was created "that was entirely unnecessary, and impaired Defendant's rights against third parties." CBP's action barred any possible recourse against the main obligor and its reinsurer, so by the time Aegis was billed, "the importer was nowhere to be found," necessitating a finding of impairment of suretyship, the brief said (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT #20-03628).
Unreliable lab reports by CBP call into question suspended cases, regardless of the outcome of a test case, New Image Global, Inc., argued in two separate Oct. 28 complaints to the Court of International Trade (New Image Global Inc. v. United States, CIT #14-00271 and 15-00316).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Oct. 28 order consolidated two appeals of a lower court opinion dismissing importer Dr. Bronner's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction over xanthan gum imports, dismissing GLoB Energy Corp.'s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denying the remaining motions for judgment on the agency record. One case was appealed from the Court of International Trade by Ascencion Chemicals, UMD Solutions and Crude Chem Technology, while the other was brought by GLoB (All God One Faith, dba Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps v. United States, Fed. Cir. #23-1078).
Specialty medical foods designed for infants and toddlers should be classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. heading 2106 as "food preparations" rather than as "medicaments," DOJ argued in an Oct. 28 motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade (Nutricia North America v. U.S., CIT #16-00008).
'Major Questions Doctrine' Does Not to Apply to Section 301 Exclusion Case, US Tells Federal Circuit
The "major questions doctrine" established in the Supreme Court decision West Virginia v. EPA does not apply to the question of whether a protest needed to be filed with CBP to retroactively apply Section 301 duty exclusions, the U.S. argued in an Oct. 28 brief opposing a motion for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Even if the major questions doctrine did apply, CBP acted in line with the clear authority granted by Congress in collecting Section 301 duties from plaintiff-appellants ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings, the brief said (ARP Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2176).
The U.S. is using a spat over whether surety company American Home Assurance Co. can use a laches defense in a customs penalty case "as a red herring" to turn the Court of International Trade's attention away from the surety's statute of limitations defense, AHAC argued in an Oct. 27 reply brief. The matter is a "straight-forward statute of limitations case" since the U.S. brought the action seeking uncollected antidumping duties more than six years after the right of action began, and any attack on the defendant's affirmative defense of laches is merely a distraction, the brief said (United States v. American Home Assurance Co., CIT #20-00175).
CBP's decision not to pay out interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest, on collected antidumping and countervailing duties violates the plain language of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, groups of plaintiff-appellants argued in two opening briefs in two different cases at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. One brief, penned by appellants led by Hilex Poly Co. and American Drew, said that even if the law was ambiguous, CBP has failed to exercise any authority "in a way that deserves deference" (Hilex Poly Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2106) (Adee Honey Farms v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2105).
Cross-petitioning the Supreme Court with two petitions for certiorari on different issues from Florida’s social media law S.B. 7072, as CCIA and NetChoice did, is the only way to bring compelled disclosure provisions that weren’t ruled unconstitutional by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in front of the justices, said academics and lawyers in interviews.
The Commerce Department abused its discretion by denying respondent Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipes' late-filed submission in an antidumping duty review while giving itself a far greater delay, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Oct. 28 opinion. Ajmal claimed that COVID-19-related difficulties caused the less-than-two-hour delay. While Judge Jane Restani ruled that it could be considered reasonable for Commerce to have rejected the filing on these grounds, the judge said that the agency abused its discretion by ignoring its own actions, which caused a far more considerable delay in the proceeding.