An individual who is challenging her failed customs broker test without a lawyer (see 2202170065) responded to DOJ's motion for a more definitive statement, in an April 14 brief at the Court of International Trade. The unusual filing responds to the U.S.'s request for a more clear legal claim by arguing that Brenda Smith, the executive assistant commissioner at CBP, made mistakes when responding to the plaintiff, Shuzhen Zhong, in her appeal of her customs broker test results. The case requests a review of the six questions that Zhong appealed to CBP in the test. Zhong took particular issue with CBP's getting both her address and gender wrong when returning the results of her appeal. In the filing, Zhong requested to be supplied with a pro bono lawyer (Shuzhen Zhong v. United States, CIT #22-00041).
Allegheny Technologies Inc. was granted refunds for Section 232 steel and aluminum duties paid on various entries following court-annexed mediation at the Court of International Trade, according to an April 13 stipulated judgment from the court. The case is the second of its kind to result in refunds for Section 232 duties paid following an initial challenge to the Commerce Department's denial of duty exclusion requests (Allegheny Technologies v. U.S., CIT #20-03923).
Lithionics Battery and its founder and owner Steven Tartaglia violated the law by falsely claiming their battery and battery module products were made in the U.S., the Federal Trade Commission said in an April 12 complaint in a Florida district court. By doing so, the company and its founder violated the Made in the USA Labeling Rule, the complaint said (United States v. Lithionics Battery LLC, M.D. Fla. #8:22-00868). The case marks the first enforcement action under the agency's new labeling rules (see 2107010077), the agency said.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department should not have tapped Malaysia as the primary surrogate country in an antidumping duty review, plaintiff-appellants, led by Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., said in an April 7 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appellants said that after the Court of International Trade invalidated Commerce's basis for picking Malaysia, the agency "advanced meritless bases" to keep its pick and that Romania figures to be the better choice (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. Ltd. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1298).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department said a South Korean sewerage fees program isn't countervailable, on remand from the Court of International Trade, dropping countervailing duty respondent Hyundai Steel's CVD rate to 0.50%. After learning more about the program, Commerce said Hyundai properly qualified for a reduction in its sewerage fees pursuant to the laws of South Korea and said this reduction wasn't received only by Hyundai (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., CIT #21-00304).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department's decision to reject part of antidumping duty respondent Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipes' submissions for being nearly two hours late due to COVID-19-related technical difficulties constitutes an abuse of discretion, the respondent said in an April 8 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. The motion said the technical difficulties were an "extraordinary circumstance," and acceptance of the late filing would have been inconsequential to Commerce's ability to timely conduct the investigation. The consequences for the rejection of the filing are grossly disproportionate to the error made, it said (Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipes Ind. v. U.S., CIT #21-00587).
Importer Shamrock Building Materials moved April 11 to throw out the testimony of a witness in a customs classification dispute, telling the Court of International Trade that the witness, Athanasios Meliopoulos, is "woefully incompetent." The plaintiff said that Meliopoulos isn't qualified to render an opinion on the only relevant question of the case -- whether the imported electrical conduit tubing is lined with insulating materials (Shamrock Building Materials v. United States, CIT #20-00074).