The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 7 paperless order instructed the plaintiff, Environment One, in a case over a denied Section 301 exclusion request to file a supplemental brief over whether a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision is relevant to the current action (Environment One Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00124).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A Canadian softwood lumber producer cannot claim to be a successor-in-interest to another lumber company still in existence, the government argued in a Sept. 6 brief at the Court of International Trade (GreenFirst Forest Products, v. United States, CIT # 22-00097)
The Commerce Department properly stuck by its decision to issue questionnaires in lieu of on-site verification due to the COVID-19-related travel restrictions on remand at the Court of International, the agency argued in a Sept. 6 brief filed to the Court of International Trade. During the remand, Commerce took a new agency action by finding that the questionnaire responses constituted verification -- a move it says was not only legal but justified since the antidumping duty respondent, Shakti Forge Industries, gave an amount of information that typically exceeds that found in other investigations, and the information corroborated and verified information that Shakti previously submitted (Bonney Forge Corporation v. United States, CIT #20-03837).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 19 - Sept. 4:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Sept. 6 opinion said that the Court of International Trade was right to dismiss a suit from two importers seeking to retroactively apply Section 301 tariff exclusions, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction since a protest with CBP was not filed. The trade court held that it did not have jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, since the court would have had jurisdiction under Section 1581(a) had the importers, ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings, filed protests with CBP. The Federal Circuit agreed, holding that the true nature of the suit contests CBP's assessment of the duties and not the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's exclusions, necessitating a protest.
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Sept. 6 opinion said that the Court of International Trade was right to dismiss a suit from two importers seeking to retroactively apply Section 301 tariff exclusions, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction since a protest with CBP was not filed. The trade court held that it did not have jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, since the court would have had jurisdiction under Section 1581(a) had the importers, ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings, filed protests with CBP. The Federal Circuit agreed, holding that the true nature of the suit contests CBP's assessment of the duties and not the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's exclusions, necessitating a protest.
CBP properly denied customs broker license exam test taker Byungmin Chae credit for questions 5, 27 and 33 of the April 2018 customs broker license exam, the U.S. argued in an Aug. 31 reply brief filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. DOJ went through each question, detailing why CBP's answer was the correct one and why Chae's preferred answer was errant (Byungmin Chae v. Janet Yellen, Fed. Cir. #22-2017).