The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 31 order dismissed a customs case after counsel for plaintiff Guangdong Hongteo Technology Co.'s second attempt to withdraw from the proceeding, given Hongteo's failure to respond to its counsel (Guangdong Hongteo Technology Co. v. United States, CIT #20-03776).
Specialty medical foods designed for infants and toddlers should be classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. heading 2106 as "food preparations" rather than as "medicaments," DOJ argued in an Oct. 28 motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade (Nutricia North America v. U.S., CIT #16-00008).
The Court of International Trade should dismiss a case challenging several Commerce Department actions around the antidumping duty investigation on tomatoes from Mexico, which was subject to suspension agreements, since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has already ruled on the large remaining questions in the case, the U.S. argued in an Oct. 28 reply brief. The plaintiffs, led by Bioparques de Occidente, have not conformed to the Federal Circuit opinion, and their claims are "jurisdictionally defective," the brief said (Bioparques de Occidente v. United States, CIT Consol. #19-00204).
The U.S. is using a spat over whether surety company American Home Assurance Co. can use a laches defense in a customs penalty case "as a red herring" to turn the Court of International Trade's attention away from the surety's statute of limitations defense, AHAC argued in an Oct. 27 reply brief. The matter is a "straight-forward statute of limitations case" since the U.S. brought the action seeking uncollected antidumping duties more than six years after the right of action began, and any attack on the defendant's affirmative defense of laches is merely a distraction, the brief said (United States v. American Home Assurance Co., CIT #20-00175).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department illegally valued the factors of production (FOPs) of the intermediate product for a refrigerant, anhydrous hydrofluoric acid (AHF), rather than valuing AHF's reported FOPs, plaintiffs led by respondent Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Ind. Co. argued in an Oct. 25 motion for judgment. Typically, Commerce only values the intermediate input directly if valuing the FOPs might lead to an inaccurate result. That was not the case here, since the record shows that there was no need to differentiate between Sanmei's usage of self-made AHF and purchased AHF since none of the antidumping duty review period's U.S. sales were made with purchased AHF, the brief said (Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Ind. Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00103).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 26 order allowed Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing, one of the plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation, to withdraw its motion to transfer interest in the case to Hitachi Astemo Americas. Hitachi Astemo Americas said that it wanted to withdraw the motion so it could amend its complaint and other relevant documents to reflect its merger with Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing. In July, Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing assigned all its interests in its case to Hitachi Astemo Americas, making it the real party in interest in Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing's case, the companies said in their original motion to transfer interest (see 2210140044) (Hitachi Astemo Americas v. United States, CIT #20-00973).
Steel giant U.S. Steel Corp. should not be allowed to intervene in a case brought by Seneca Foods Corp.over the Commerce Department's denial of an exclusion from Section 232 steel and aluminum duties, DOJ said in an Oct. 26 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The government argued that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit settled this issue in its California Steel Indus. v. U.S. decision (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, CIT #22-00243).
CBP did not violate an importer's due process rights by requiring protests for retroactive refunds of Section 301 duties on imported pressure switches, the government said in an Oct. 25 brief at the Court of International Trade (Environment One v. U.S., CIT # 22-00124). The brief is in support of DOJ's July motion for dismissal claiming lack of jurisdiction and timeliness.