Eastern Pacific Chartering (22) (EPC22), a Singapore shipping company, alleged in a July 21 complaint at the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware that Louis Dreyfus Company Freight Asia (LDCFA), a subsidiary of a Dutch merchant firm, violated its contract by damaging cargo. The suit would send LDCFA a nearly $3 million bill for breach of contract and cost of attorneys and related fees for an arbitration proceeding in London that kicked off due to the damaged cargo. ECP22 alleges that LDCFA's faulty stowage plan soiled the goods (Eastern Pacific Chartering (22) v. Louis Dreyfus Company Freight Asia, D. Del. #22-00958).
CBP's findings in its Enforce and Protect Act investigation on wooden cabinets and vanities from China were arbitrary and an abuse of discretion, Skyview Cabinet said in a July 18 motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade. "Simply put, CBP failed in its investigation duty, believing that it was confronted with evidence of basic transshipments,” Skyview said (Skyview Cabinet USA v. United States, CIT #22-00080).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in a July 22 order consolidated three customs cases concerning the proper classification of electric scooters, known as hoverboards. Two of the cases, including the now-lead case, were brought by 3BTech, while the remaining action was brought by Pro-Com Products. The cases were launched to argue that the hoverboards were classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9503.00.0090, which provides for "Tricycles, scooters, pedal cars and similar wheeled toys; dollsʼ carriages; dolls, other toys; reduced-scale ('scale') models and similar recreational models, working or not; puzzles of all kinds; parts and accessories thereof: Other," and allows subject goods to enter duty-free (see 2112100053) (3BTech Inc. v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00026).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate July 22 following its opinion ruling that the Commerce Department properly found that Shelter Forest International Acquisition's hardwood plywood exports didn't circumvent the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China. In the June opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of International Trade's opinion, finding that the merchandise was commercially available before Dec. 8, 2016, and was thus not later-developed merchandise that circumvented the AD/CVD orders (see 2206150032) (Shelter Forest International Acquisition Inc., et al. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2281).
The Commerce Department improperly deducted Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from antidumping duty respondent Nippon Steel Corp.'s (NSC's) U.S. price, the exporter argued in a July 22 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Becoming the next company to make the claim, NSC argued that Section 232 duties are unlike the ordinary customs duties that are considered U.S. import duties and are in fact "far more similar" to antidumping duties, countervailing duties and safeguard duties, which are not deducted from U.S. price (Nippon Steel Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00183).
The Court of International Trade should deny a motion by Saha Thai Steel Pipe for judgement and sustain The Commerce Department's 2019-2020 administrative review of an antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, the government said in a July 15 opposition motion (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. Ltd. v. United States, CIT #21-00627).
The Court of International Trade should rule against the Commerce Department's move to reject questionnaire responses submitted 30 minutes late, antidumping respondent Zhejiang Zhouli Industrial argued in a July 21 complaint. Explaining the circumstances of the late submission, Zhouli said the rejection was a "drastic measure that was not warranted" and resulted in an adverse facts available rate. It urged the court to find the rejection to be an abuse of discretion (Zhejiang Zhouli v. U.S., CIT #22-00177).
The Commerce Department was not justified in using adverse facts available in an antidumping duty review on respondent Xinjiang Meihua Amino Acid Co. since the respondent was fully cooperative and there was no gap in the record, consolidated plaintiff Jianlong Biotechnology Co. argued in a July 19 brief at the Court of International Trade. Further, there is not record evidence supporting the fact that the 77.04% dumping margin Commerce assigned to the non-individually examined companies "reflects in any way the dumping rate of the cooperative separate rate respondents," Jianlong Biotechnology argued (Meihua Group International Trading (Hong Kong) v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00069).
A recent Court of International Trade opinion finding that the U.S. cannot assert a counterclaim in customs classification litigation "is persuasive" in importer Second Nature Designs' case, the plaintiff argued in a July 20 notice of supplemental authority at the trade court. In Second Nature's case, the importer is seeking a different classification for its dried botanical entries. The U.S. has argued it can file counterclaims seeking its own preferred classification of the dried botanicals (see 2203230024). In the recent CIT opinion, Judge Claire Kelly held that the U.S. cannot make counterclaims in customs cases because there is no statutory authority to do so, redenominating the counterclaim as a defense (see 2207200052). Second Nature said in its notice that while the opinion is not binding, it's persuasive over the U.S.'s ability to assert a counterclaim (Second Nature Designs v. U.S., CIT #21-00271).