An "importer" for the purposes of assessing excise taxes must be involved in physically bringing goods into the U.S., the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled. Opining on whether tire wholesaler Texas Truck Parts & Tire was properly assessed excise tax on taxable tires, Judge Charles Eskridge said that since the company didn't arrange any of the transport of the tires from China nor secure their release from a customs-bonded warehouse, it is not an importer.
Importer Kuester Systems Mexico on Oct. 12 moved to dismiss its customs case at the Court of International Trade on the classification of its motor vehicle parts. The company brought its suit in December to contest CBP's denial of its protest regarding certain motor vehicle parts classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8708.29.5160. The company said the goods should receive duty-free treatment under the USMCA. Counsel for the importer didn't reply to request for comment (Kuester Systems Mexico S de RL v. U.S., CIT # 22-00331).
The U.S. opposed an expedited briefing schedule from Chinese printer cartridge manufacturer Ninestar Corp. in the company's case against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Ninestar's motion would hold the government's motion to dismiss in abeyance pending resolution of the company's bid for a preliminary injunction. The U.S. said "it is reversible error for the Court to delay consideration of its jurisdiction until after ruling on the motion for a preliminary injunction" (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
The Commerce Department unlawfully miscalculated duty rates and allowed a foreign producer too much leeway in the final results of its first antidumping administrative review of forged steel fluid end blocks from Italy, petitioner Ellwood City Forge Co. said in an Oct. 13 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Ellwood asked the court to remand the case to Commerce for reconsideration (Ellwood City Forge Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00191).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department is seeking additional "bites at the apple" in an Enforce and Protect Act case despite its evasion finding being unsupported, Norca Industrial Company said in an Oct. 11 reply at the Court of International Trade. Norca opposes CBP's request for an additional 90 days of remand proceedings, arguing that the issue is already decided since its carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings are out of scope. "This inquiry should end. Not in 90 days, but now," Norca said (Norca Industrial Company v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00192).
The International Trade Commission "failed to maintain the integrity of its own proceedings" when it found that freight rail couplers from China and Mexico injured the domestic industry despite an earlier finding to the contrary, importer Strato argued in an Oct. 11 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Strato v. U.S., CIT # 23-00158).
The U.S. asked for 55 more days to file its reply brief in the massive Section 301 litigation at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which would make the brief due on Dec. 21. The extension request is the second of its kind from the government, after it received a 60-day extension from the court (see 2308140026). Counsel for the plaintiff-appellants, Pratik Shah and Matthew Nicely of Akin Gump, opposed the extension "absent some medical, family, or similar intervening justification," arguing that thousands of companies are still paying the large Section 301 duties. The plaintiff-appellants consented to the first extension (HMTX Industries v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).
The Court of International Trade in a confidential Oct. 12 opinion remanded the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury determination on seamless standard, line and pressure pipe from South Korea, Russia and Ukraine. In the public remand order, Judge M. Miller Baker sent back the ITC's decision on the negligibility of imports from Russia, telling the agency to reconsider its calculation of in-scope imports from Germany and Mexico and the related finding that "there was only one importer each" for either country "in light of Customs data to the contrary" (PAO TMK v. United States, CIT # 21-00532).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: