The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department properly found that importers Worldwide Door Components' and Columbia Aluminum Products' door thresholds qualify for the finished merchandise exclusion for the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, the importers said in a pair of comments on Commerce's remand results. Submitting their arguments to the Court of International Trade, Worldwide and Columbia said that the trade court should uphold the agency's remand results excluding the thresholds from the orders (Worldwide Door Components v. U.S., CIT #19-00012) (Columbia Aluminum Products v. U.S., CIT #19-00013).
CBP misclassified imports of dried botanicals that are painted, dyed or glittered, importer Second Nature Designs argued in a Sept. 26 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The botanicals were liquidated under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 0604.90.6000, dutiable at 7%, though Second Nature believes they should be classified under subheading 0604.90.3000, free of duty, the complaint said (Second Nature Designs v. United States, CIT #18-00131).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Antidumping duty respondent Asia Pacific Fibers (APF) failed to exhaust its administrative remedies in its challenge of the Commerce Department's use of a questionnaire instead of on-site verification, the U.S. argued in a Sept. 26 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Given this failure, the U.S. had no chance to consider and address the issues raised by the respondent for the first time, the brief said. Further, the U.S. defended Commerce's use of total adverse facts available over APF's failure to supply "critical" supplementary information over the respondent's cost and sales data (PT. Asia Pacific Fibers v. United States, CIT #22-00007).
Importer Maple Leaf Marketing (MLM) filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Sept. 23 seeking duty-free treatment for its boronized steel tubing that was made in the U.S., exported to Canada for alteration, then brought back into the U.S. MLM said that its imports qualify for classification under Harmonized Tariff Schedule secondary subheading 9802.00.50. The importer further sought to clear its goods of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties since the products are of U.S. origin (Maple Leaf Marketing v. United States, CIT #20-03839).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on Sept. 23 in a case brought by Vicentin on the antidumping duty investigation on biodiesel from Argentina. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit held that tradeable tax credits fall within the regulatory definition of a "price adjustment," meaning the Commerce Department properly deducted the credits from respondent LDC Argentina's export price (see 2208020052). The court said that the agency's use of an international market price for soybeans in its constructed value calculation for biodiesel does not count as a double remedy, even though the U.S. imposed countervailing duties on Argentine soybeans (Vicentin v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1988).
An importer’s contention that the date of discovery for statute of limitations purposes is the date the allegations of misconduct were submitted to CBP “exhibits a profound misunderstanding” of how government investigations work and of the concept of fraud, DOJ said in a Sept. 22 brief opposing the importer’s request for rehearing (United States v. Greenlight Organic, CIT #17-00031).
No trade-related lawsuits have been filed since Sept. 21 at the Court of International Trade.
Personal protective equipment manufacturer defendants, led by Smart Glove Holdings, failed to disclose they were under investigation by CBP for using forced labor, leading to over $68.5 million in damages to protective equipment supplier Airboss Defense Group (ADG), ADG said in a Sept. 19 complaint. Filing suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, ADG claimed that had it known about this investigation, it would not have agreed to source its gloves from Smart Glove and would have avoided the millions in charges, logistics costs and storage fees it incurred due to the imports being detained under a withhold release order (Airboss Defense Group v. Smart Glove Holdings, C.D. Calif. #2:22-06727).