The U.S. agreed to liquidate plastic lids for vacuum-sealed drinkware imported by Yeti Coolers without Section 301 duties, the parties said in a stipulated judgment at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 26. The goods were imported under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 3923.50.0000, dutiable at 5.3%, and secondary subheading 9903.88.03, which was subject to either a 10% or 25% Section 301 duty. After Yeti brought suit to challenge this classification, the government agreed to classify the goods under subheading 9617.00.6000, which covers parts of vacuum flasks and is dutiable at 7.2% but without Section 301 duties (Yeti Coolers v. U.S., CIT # 21-00526).
Importer Trimil voluntarily dismissed 17 customs cases at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 27. The company brought the cases to challenge CBP's decision to appraise its apparel imports at the prices paid with royalties included (see 2112150046). Counsel for the importer said the cases were settled with CBP (Trimil v. U.S., CIT #s 05-00443, 05-00677, 06-00145, 06-00295, 07-00004, 07-00235, 07-00416, 08-00110, 08-00309, 09-00117, 09-00328, 09-00539, 10-00202, 10-00378, 11-00155, 11-00418, 12-00383).
Exporters led by Bio-Lab argued that the statute concerning surrogate value selection requires the Commerce Department to balance the importance of both economic and merchandise comparability rather than elevating one factor over the other. Filing a reply brief earlier this month at the Court of International Trade, Bio-Lab said that the court should find this to be the "best" reading of the statute, 19 U.S.C. 1677b(c), under the standard of review for ambiguous statutes established by the Supreme Court in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (Bio-Lab v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 24-00024).
Chinese company Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment (AMEC) and the U.S. are conferring on how to end the company's suit against its designation as a "Chinese military company" after the Pentagon removed the firm's designation earlier this month (Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment Inc. China v. United States, D.D.C. # 24-02357).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department reasonably said importer Cambridge Isotope Laboratories' enriched isotope compounds fit under the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on ammonium sulfate from China, the government argued in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The importer's 15N-enriched ammonium sulfate should have been included under the orders since the orders cover ammonium sulfate in all "physical forms," the government said (Cambridge Isotope Laboratories v. United States, CIT # 23-00080).
In response to a Georgia woman’s claim that the customs broker license exam “lacked sufficient information” on four questions, resulting in her failure to pass (see 2402160040), the U.S. said the woman was “entirely incorrect” regarding the questions’ ambiguity (Skeeter-Jo Stoute-Francois v. U.S., CIT # 24-00046).
Congress didn't give the Commerce Department authority to deviate from certain principles associated with anti-circumvention proceedings whenever it thinks the effectiveness of an AD/CVD measure has been threatened "by changes in manufacturing methods or supply chains," Solar cell exporter BYD (H.K.) Co. argued. Filing a reply brief last week with the Court of International Trade, BYD said Congress laid out only a "very limited number of specific manufacturing scenarios" that can be deemed "circumvention" (BYD (H.K.) Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00221).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Exporter Teh Fong Min (TFM) International Co. filed a brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last week adopting the government's defense of its decision to revoke the antidumping duty orders on stilbenic optical brightening agents from China and Taiwan after no interested domestic party filed a notice of intent to participate in sunset reviews on the orders (Archroma U.S. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-2159).