Imported wood and metal seats met the requirements for Section 301 tariff exclusions but had those duties unlawfully levied upon them by CBP, Georgia-based furniture importer and wholesaler Belnick said in its Oct. 17 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Belnick v. U.S., CIT # 23-00072).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 13 order dismissed importer Kuester Systems Mexico's customs case on the classification of the company's motor vehicle parts. The trade court case was a protective filing while the company negotiated with CBP, S. Richard Shostak, counsel for Kuester, said in an email to Trade Law Daily. CBP allowed a related protest, recognizing the importer's claim that the goods qualified for duty-free NAFTA treatment, Shostak said. The CIT suit concerned certain motor vehicle parts classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8708.29.5160 (Kuester Systems Mexico S de RL v. U.S., CIT # 22-00331).
The U.S. will appeal an August Court of International Trade decision finding that the statute of limitations for CBP to collect on customs bonds runs six years from the date of the underlying entry's liquidation and not from the date that CBP demanded payment. Per the notice of appeal, the government will take the suit to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (United States v. American Home Assurance Co., CIT # 20-00175).
Exporter Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer and importer Repwire failed to argue that the Commerce Department could only limit respondents in an antidumping duty review when the number of respondents is large administratively, petitioner Southwire Co. said in its reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Should the appellate court find that Jin Tiong and Repwire didn't fail to exhaust their administrative remedies, the decision not to assign Jin Tiong a separate rate rested on the exporter's "failure to submit a timely" separate rate application, the petitioner argued (Repwire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1933).
The Commerce Department failed to support its use of quarterly costs and failed to provide a rational explanation when it revised the antidumping duty margin for Italian steel exporter Officine Tecnosider to zero percent on remand, Nucor Corporation said in its Oct. 12 remand comments at the Court of Internatinoal Trade (Officine Tecnosider SRL v. United States, CIT # 23-00001).
CBP Withholding Communications on Past Classification Decisions, Importer Argues in Motion to Compel
The government should be ordered to produce unredacted documents for inspection by the judge and be ordered to disclose additional statements not reflecting protected deliberations in a case concerning the classification of intelligent window shade machines, Lutron Electronics said in its Oct. 13 motion to compel at the Court of International Trade. Lutron is seeking information related to former CBP employees and communications regarding decision-making in the classification process. Lutron said it fulfilled its obligation in attempting to resolve the dispute in good faith before filing its motion (Lutron Electronics v. U.S., CIT # 22-00264).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
An "importer" for the purposes of assessing excise taxes must be involved in physically bringing goods into the U.S., the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled. Opining on whether tire wholesaler Texas Truck Parts & Tire was properly assessed excise tax on taxable tires, Judge Charles Eskridge said that since the company didn't arrange any of the transport of the tires from China nor secure their release from a customs-bonded warehouse, it is not an importer.
Importer Kuester Systems Mexico on Oct. 12 moved to dismiss its customs case at the Court of International Trade on the classification of its motor vehicle parts. The company brought its suit in December to contest CBP's denial of its protest regarding certain motor vehicle parts classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8708.29.5160. The company said the goods should receive duty-free treatment under the USMCA. Counsel for the importer didn't reply to request for comment (Kuester Systems Mexico S de RL v. U.S., CIT # 22-00331).