No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.
Importer Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) will appeal a May Court of International Trade decision concerning the classification of 14 types of frozen fruit mixtures. According to the June 23 notice of appeal, Nature's Touch will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the suit, Judge Stephen Vaden said all of the mixture types, five of which contain vegetable ingredients, should be set under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 0811.90.80 as "other" frozen fruits, dutiable at 14.5% (see 2305260048) (Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) v. United States, CIT # 20-00131).
It was "not appropriate" for the Commerce Department to conclude that price differences between an Emirati exporter's sales across four quarters were due to differential pricing, several Emirati producers and exporters of circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe said in a June 22 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Universal Tube and Plastic Industries v. U.S., CIT # 23-00113).
DOJ on June 21 urged the Court of International Trade to uphold the Commerce Department's calculations of benchmark prices for plywood and veneer, as well as its use of adverse inferences on the use of the Chinese Export Buyer's Credit Program, in a countervailing duty review on multilayered wood flooring from China (Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00210).
The Court of International Trade in a June 23 order denied antidumping duty petitioners' bid for an oral argument in a suit on whether to collapse mandatory respondents Yieh Phui Enterprise Co. and Synn Industrial Co. with one of their affiliates, Prosperity Tieh Enterprise Co. Judge Timothy Stanceu rejected the oral argument request following opposition from Prosperity and Yieh Phui, finding that "oral argument would not assist in the resolution of the issues remaining in this litigation" (Prosperity Tieh Enterprise Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 16-00138).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 22 issued its mandate in a case on the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China. The Federal Circuit said the Commerce Department properly valued an input of activated carbon using data from a country different from the primary surrogate nation (see 2305010028). The court said the agency's departure from its normal practice of preferring to take all the data from the primary surrogate country does not mean its decision was unsupported by substantial evidence (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1298).
The Commerce Department didn't violate the law by accepting information submitted by antidumping duty respondent Zhejiang Dingli Machinery Co. even though the data was labeled as business proprietary, the government said in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. In the AD investigation on mobile access equipment and subassemblies from China, the U.S. said the information could only have been submitted as business proprietary information, and that the data was merely "supporting documentation for information already on the record" (Coalition of American Manufacturers of Mobile Access Equipment v. U.S., CIT # 22-00152).
CBP illegally classified rough, unworked emerald stones imported by Fine Emeralds, the company argued in a June 22 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The customs agency classified the goods under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7103.10.40, dutiable at 10.5%, while Fine Emeralds is claiming that the proper home for the emeralds is subheading 7103.10.20, free of duty. Subheading 7103.10.40 provides for precious stones, whether or not worked but not strung, mounted or set, "Other," while subheading 7103.10.20 provides for unworked precious stones. The complaint said that on entry the merchandise was described on the commercial invoice as "rough emeralds," adding that they were neither "simply sawn nor roughly shaped" (Fine Emeralds v. United States, CIT # 20-03928).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied importer Smith-Cooper International's bid for 3,000 additional words in its reply brief as part of a suit on a scope case concerning Vandewater International's steel branch outlets. SCI filed a 10,000-word reply brief days after making the request to waive the word limit requirements. Judge Alan Lourie denied the request, telling SCI it must refile its reply brief, not to exceed 7,000 words, within 21 days of the June 21 order. The order comes despite appellant Sigma Corp. and the U.S. having consented to the move and SCI's claims that good cause existed for the use of more words, given the "voluminous nature of the Government's response brief" (see 2305250032) (Vandewater International v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1093).