Tobacco wraps importer New Image Global argued at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the Court of International Trade should not have allowed the results of a flawed customs test into evidence. The importer is fighting for a lower excise tax on its tobacco wraps, which were classified by the government as roll-your-own tobacco, subjecting them to the excise tax. The wraps are made with ethanol, which "gasses off" when the package is opened and the wrap is exposed to air. New Image has argued that this process will shed between 10% and 13% of the wraps' weight by the time they reach the final consumer and notes that "any lab test that finds that sealed wraps gain weight in storage and transit from the Mexican factory to the United States is inherently unreliable" (New Image Global v. United States, Fed. Cir. #19-2444).
A challenge by mattress importers to the Commerce Department's use of a statistical test in its effort to root out "masked" dumping should be dismissed because the importers suffered no injury, the Department of Justice and antidumping petitioners said in a pair of Feb. 17 reply briefs. The Court of International Trade, DOJ and the petitioners said the test was inconsequential to the antidumping duty matter, making the challenge to it moot (Ashley Furniture Industries v. United States, CIT #21-00283).
A lawsuit at the Court of International Trade filed by an individual who failed their customs broker license test was assigned to Judge Mark Barnett, in a Feb. 17 order. The case was filed by Shuzhen Zhong (see 220211002) without an attorney and 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. While no attorney is listed for Zhong, Luke Mathers of the Justice Department's International Trade Field Office appeared for the government (Shuzhen Zhong v. United States, CIT #22-00041).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stayed nine antidumping duty and countervailing duty challenges until a full resolution is reached in another proceeding over whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below cost test. In a series of three orders, the appellate court paused the cases pending resolution of the request for an en banc rehearing in the other case, Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S.
Products from importer SMA Surfaces meet all four of the criteria for an exclusion from the antidumping and countervailing duties on quartz surface products from China, and the Commerce Department never addressed "unrefuted evidence" which shows that one of its products satisfies the key fourth criteria for this exclusion, the importer argued in a Feb. 16 brief at the Court of International Trade (SMA Surfaces v. United States, CIT #21-00399).
Shipping company Planet Nine Private Air's counterclaims in a case on the company's alleged gross negligence in handling a hemp shipment should be "dismissed in their entirety," plaintiff We CBD said in a reply brief filed at the District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. We CBD argued that many of the claims are conclusory and do not allege any facts and will also be resolved during the litigation of We CBD's claims (We CBD v. Planet Nine Private Air, W.D.N.C. #21-00352)
Hallmark Cards, along with its insurer, Continental Insurance Company, is suing Swiss-based shipping firm MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company in a New York district court for damaging two containers of Hallmark merchandise in transit to Asia. In its Feb. 15 complaint at the District Court for the Southern District of New York, Hallmark and Continental said that MSC was negligent in its failure to deliver the cargo, thereby breaching its "statutory, contractual, and/or common law duties and obligations" as a carrier of the merchandise (Continental Insurance Company v. MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company, S.D.N.Y. #22-1272).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found an appendix filed by plaintiff-appellant Uttam Galva Steel Limited in a countervailing duty challenge to not be in compliance with the court's rules (Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2119). The court said that any multi-volume appendix must have a volume number in Roman numerals with the pages included in the volume at the top of the cover of each volume. Further, a confidential version of the appendix must have any relevant excerpts of statutes imposing confidentiality or the "entirety of any judicial or administrative protective order" at the beginning. The court also said that the appendix failed to contain the required proof of service or that the proof of service shows improper service of material that cannot be served through the e-filing system.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an antidumping case brought by Vietnamese exporter Godaco Seafood Joint Stock Co. following the company's motion to voluntarily dismiss the case. Godaco was appealing a Court of International Trade decision affirming the Commerce Department's results of the 2015-16 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on fish fillets from Vietnam, in which the court initially rejected the agency's separate rate calculation. Commerce originally calculated the separate rate by averaging the separate rates from the previous four administrative reviews. The court then upheld the calculation after the agency based the separate rate on more contemporaneous data (see 2109270035). No reason was given for the requested dismissal (Godaco Seafood Joint Stock Company v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1202).