Entries of dual-stenciled pipe made before Commerce initiated a scope inquiry should be out of scope of an antidumping duty order on circular welded pipe, regardless of a pending appeal of that determination, Blue Pipe said in its March 29 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Blue Pipe also continued to argue that all of its imported pipe is not within scope. Even if the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit finds the evasion determination was lawful, Blue Pipe asked it to overturn CBP’s decision to apply the evasion determination to entries made before Commerce initiated its scope inquiry (Blue Pipe Steel Center Co., Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00081).
Imported "LED lighting products" are properly classified as light-emitting diode (LED) lamps, not subject to Section 232 tariffs, importer Super Bright LEDs argued in a March 31 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Super Bright asked the court to reclassify its imported lights under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8539.50.00, which carries a duty rate of 2% but is not subject to additional Section 232 duties (Super Bright LEDs v. U.S., CIT # 21-00099).
A fraud complaint against Florida businessman Zhe "John" Liu and GL Paper Distribution should not be amended by adding a third defendant, Liu argued in an April 2 response at the Court of International Trade. DOJ's March 15 request to add AB MA Distribution Corporation as a defendant (see 2303140046) "omits critical facts" by failing to disclose a related and ongoing administrative process, Liu said (U.S. v. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT # 22-00215).
Boronized steel tubes, originally classified by CBP as duty-free U.S. goods returned after repairs, are correctly classified as unfinished steel tubes and subject to Section 301 tariffs, DOJ argued in its March 31 motion at the Court of International Trade. The government asked the court to deny a motion by importer Maple Leaf Marketing to dismiss the government's counterclaim (Maple Leaf Marketing v. United State, CIT # 20-03839).
Counterweights for mini-excavators are not parts for "backhoes" and should be excluded from Section 301 tariffs, manufacturer Norca argued in a March 29 motion at the Court of International Trade. Norca accused the government of obscuring and overcomplicating the distinction between the two equipment types (Norca Engineered Products v. U.S., CIT # 21-00305).
Liquidation of imported picture frame moldings should have been suspended pending antidumping and countervailing duty administrative reviews, importer Larson-Juhl told the Court of International Trade in a March 30 complaint. The complaint contests CBP's denial of Larson-Juhl's protests concerning the liquidation and assessment of duties on nine entries subject to AD and CVD orders on wood mouldings and millwork products from China (Larson-Juhl US v. United States., CIT # 23-00032).
Court of International Trade can't issue a decision in a denied protest challenge based on a finding that can't determine the proper origin, Cyber Power Systems argued in a March 30 motion for reconsideration to CIT. Cyber Power asked the court for a partial retrial or rehearing of its Feb 27 ruling, in which CIT found that Cyber Power didn’t prove a substantial transformation occurred for four models of its uninterruptable power supplies and one model of its surge voltage protector (see 2302270064) (Cyber Power Systems v. U.S., CIT # 20-00124).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on March 30 in a case wherein it ruled a protest of a CBP decision must be filed within 180 days of liquidation, rather than the date the Commerce Department issues antidumping and countervailing duty instructions to CBP or the date CBP denies an importer's refund request. In the decision, the appellate court upheld the Court of International Trade opinion dismissing the case on the grounds that Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, failed to file a protest in time (see 2302060029) (Acquisition 362 v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1161).
A lawsuit over an expired comparability finding for New Zealand's West Coast North Island multispecies set-net and trawl fisheries should be dismissed since the comparability findings “are not capable of repetition yet evading review,” the U.S. said March 29. There is no “reasonable expectation” that anyone will be subjected to the same findings, the government said. The challenge should be dismissed because the proceeding deals with whether certain fish can enter the U.S. during a discreet time period that has now passed, the U.S. said (Sea Shepherd New Zealand v. U.S., CIT # 20-00112).