Howard Buskirk

The Court of International Trade on June 30 granted importer Environment One's bid to dismiss its case seeking Section 301 refunds. The case concerns 31 entries classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8536.50.7000, a duty-free provision subject to Section 301 tariffs. Environment One filed a protest challenging the liquidation, claiming a Section 301 exclusion granted after entry. The company then took to the trade court to claim that the government violated the law by creating a protest requirement for Section 301 refunds despite that statute applying to only certain CBP decisions (see 2210260011) (Environment One v. United States, CIT # 22-00124).

Surety firm American Service Insurance Co. moved to dismiss its customs case at the Court of International Trade. American Service Insurance, serving as a surety for New Image Global, filed the case to contest how CBP weighed its tobacco products and cigar wraps classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2403.91.2000, dutiable at $24.78 per pound. (American Service Insurance Co. v. United States, CIT # 16-00122).

Tomato exporters Bioparques de Occidente and Agricola La Primavera and wholesaler Kaliroy Fresh will appeal a May Court of International Trade opinion that affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's dismissal of one count of its case challenging the Commerce Department's decision to resume an antidumping duty investigation following the termination of a suspension agreement. The claim concerned Commerce's withdrawal from a previous suspension agreement and claimed jurisdiction under Section 1581(i). While the trade court said it had jurisdiction to hear the claim, the appellate court already dismissed the challenge on substantive grounds (see 2305010071). Per the notice of appeal, the companies will take the case back to the Federal Circuit (Bioparques de Occidente, et al. v. United States, CIT # 20-00035).

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Court of International Trade recently granted DOJ’s motion for more time to file its remand results in a case on CBP's Enforce and Protect Act determination that Fedmet Resources evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on magnesia alumina carbon bricks from China. Fedmet opposed the motion, which sought a 60-day extension of the July 3 due date, because it would perpetuate the "continuing prejudice" suffered by the importer due to the "unjustified imposition of interim measures against Fedmet," which has effectively stopped it from importing MAC bricks since May 2020. The court granted the extension motion in a text-only order, giving the government until Sept. 1 to file the remand results. It said no further extensions would be granted unless a showing of extraordinary circumstances is made (Fedmet Resources v. U.S., CIT # 21-00248).

Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) asked the Court of International Trade to stay a court order for CBP to reliquidate entries of its imported mixtures while the importer pursues an appeal of the relevant CIT decision, issued in May (see 2305260048). CIT had found the importer'ws frozen fruit mixtures classifiable under the basket tariff subheading 0811.90.80 pf the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. as "other" frozen fruits, dutiable at 14.5%, rather than under a duty-free classification under subheading 2106.90.98 as “[f]ood preparations not otherwise specified or included," as advocated by Nature's Touch.

The Court of International Trade should reject a challenge from U.S. steel company Cleveland-Cliffs of the International Trade Commission’s decision not to cumulate imports in sunset reviews, two Brazilian steel exporters said in a June 27 brief at CIT. The steel producers -- Companhia Siderurgica Nacional and Usinas Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais -- said Cleveland Cliffs illegally asked CIT to "seize the Commission’s statutory discretion to decumulate in sunset reviews, establish new law, reweigh the evidence, and make findings that this Court has never made before” (Cleveland-Cliffs v. U.S., CIT # 22-00257).

The Court of International Trade granted U.S. steel company Nucor Corp.'s bid to dismiss its suit on the 2020 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on corrosion-resistant steel products from South Korea. Nucor launched the suit to contest the Commerce Department's finding that electricity in South Korea that was provided for less than adequate remuneration conferred no benefit (see 2304070054). Nucor claimed that the agency was required to verify questionnaire responses from the South Korean government regarding the provision of the electricity (Nucor Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00058).

The Commerce Department stuck by its decision to apply adverse facts available to antidumping duty respondent Meihua along with its decisions not to rescind its review of Deosen Biochemical and not to recalculate a separate rate in spite of a court order to reconsider all three, in remand results filed with the Court of International Trade on June 27 (Meihua Group International (Hong Kong) v. U.S., CIT # 22-00069).

Chinese exporter Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. and its U.S. importer Carbon Activated Corp. will appeal a Court of International Trade decision upholding the Commerce Department's surrogate value picks for coal-based carbonized materials and financial statement selections used to calculate surrogate ratios. The companies are challenging an antidumping duty administrative review on activated carbon from China, the June 27 notice of appeal said. CIT Judge Mark Barnett ruled that Commerce's pick of Malaysian data for Harmonized System subheading 4402.90.1000 to value carbonized material was backed by substantial evidence, as was the agency's selection of the 2018 Bravo Green financial statements (see 2305010006) (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00131).