Importer Amini Innovation Corp. filed a stipulation of dismissal Nov. 6 in its challenge to the Commerce Department's scope ruling that found Amini's upholstered furniture was subject to the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China. Amini argued in its suit that its goods were not subject to the order because they differ from the in-scope furniture in terms of the products' physical characteristics, expectations of ultimate purchasers, ultimate use, channels of trade and manner in which they were advertised (see 2305250043) (Amini Innovation Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00090).
Importer Ditches Suit on Section 232 'Derivative' Duties After High Court Rejection in Separate Case
Importer Tempo Global Resources filed a stipulation of dismissal on Nov. 6 in its case on President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties onto "derivative" products, after the Supreme Court declined to hear another case challenging the same presidential action. The Court of International Trade stayed Tempo Global's case in August pending the high court's resolution of the separate Section 232 case, PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S. (see 2308080024). The Supreme Court rejected PrimeSource's request for review at the end of October, despite the company's claims that the case could allow the court to decide how separation-of-powers principles apply to statutory interpretations delegating vast legislative power to the executive branch (see 2310300020) (Tempo Global Resources v. United States, CIT # 20-00066).
Products imported by Cozy Comfort are "pullovers" or "sweatshirts" not "blankets" or "other garments," DOJ said in a Nov. 3 motion for judgment in a tariff classification case at the Court of International Trade (Cozy Comfort Company v. U.S., CIT # 22-00173).
Two cases involving the 2021-2022 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from India should be consolidated by the Court of International Trade, AD petitioner Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee told the court in its Nov. 2 consolidation request (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v. U.S., CIT # 23-00202; Megaa Moda Private Limited v. U.S., CIT # 23-00205).
The U.S. and importer Fanuc Robotics America have "reached an agreement in principle" on how to classify all but two models of robots at issue in the the importer's case at the Court of International Trade. Submitting a joint status report on Nov. 3, the parties said that the classification of the remaining two models is "taking the parties much longer than anticipated" due to the age of the models and the retirement of the national import specialist who "assisted with the review of the technical information" in the case (Fanuc Robotics America v. U.S., CIT # 12-00052).
The Commerce Department correctly found that lemon juice exporter Louis Dreyfus Co. (LDC) was not affiliated with its unnamed primary fresh lemon supplier and correctly applied a de minimis rate to LDC, the company said in its Nov. 1 reply brief at the Court of International Trade, coming on the heels of a similar brief by DOJ (see 2311020024) (Ventura Coastal v. U.S., CIT # 23-00009).
Self-powered, radioluminescent light sources fueled by tritium that importer Trijicon uses to illuminate gun sights are properly classified as "lamps" under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9405 "not elsewhere specified or included," the U.S. argued in a cross motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade. The common meaning of the term "lamp," derived from "lexicographic sources and caselaw," shows this to be true, but it's really Trijicon's own communications with its supplier, workers, customers and chief regulator agreeing with this point that win the day for the government, the brief said (Trijicon v. United States, CIT # 22-00040).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 2 order granted petitioner Sierra Pacific Industries' notice of dismissal in a case involving the final results of the 2021 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on softwood lumber products from Canada. The case was filed in October and dismissed before a complaint was filed (Sierra Pacific Industries v. United States, CIT # 23-00207).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a text-only order granted a motion to extend time to file an opening brief from exporters Double Coin Holdings and China Manufacturers Alliance in a case involving a review of the antidumping duty order on off-the-road tires from China. The exporters now have until Nov. 28 to file the opening brief in a case whin ich the Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's decision to assign Double Coin the 105.31% China-wide dumping rate due to the company's failure to rebut the presumption of Chinese state control over its export activities (see 2307200020) (China Manufacturers Alliance v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2391).