Mixes of frozen fruits should be classified under heading 0811 as "fruit and nuts," rather than under heading 2106 as "food preparations," the government said again in a July 18 brief in support of its May 23 motion to dismiss (see 2205240031) (Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West). v. U.S., CIT #20-00131). None of the products at issue constitute “food preparations” of heading 2106 as they are not subject to the level of processing that is typical of “food preparations.” Instead, the "all-fruit mixes at issue are classifiable under the eo nomine provision for frozen '[f]ruit' in Heading 0811, [Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S.], pursuant to GRI 1," the brief said.
Battery powered flexible electronic eWriter device containing flexible pressure sensitive liquid crystal writing film are properly classified as "optical appliances" under subheading 9013.80.7000 and subject to a product exclusion under Section 301 tariffs, Kent Displays said in a July 18 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Kent Displays, Inc. v. U.S. CIT # 20-00156).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 12 letter invited the U.S. and defendants-appellants Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) and Hyundai Corp. to file a response to a panel rehearing petition in an antidumping duty case. Originally brought by Hitachi Energy USA, the case concerns the administrative review of the AD order on large power transformers from South Korea. In a May opinion, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Commerce Department improperly hit respondent HHI with adverse facts available over its reporting of service-related revenue. The court said HHI has the right to supplement the record and Commerce cannot claim the company didn't act to the best of its ability in the review since it fully responded to Commerce's requests for further information (see 2205240028). Hitachi then filed for a rehearing, and the court invited the U.S., HHI and Hyundai Corp. to respond since they have yet to file a reply (Hitachi Energy USA v. United States, Fed. Cir. #20-2114).
Agricultural net wraps for baling hay or other silage are not "parts" of agricultural machinery, but rather an input classifiable as fabric, the government said in a July 15 brief at the Court of International Trade (RKW Klerks Inc. v. U.S., CIT #20-00001).
Patented VicFlex sprinkler brackets are properly classified as “parts” of machines for dispersing or spraying liquids under tariff schedule subheading 8424.90.9080 and not subject to Section 301 duties, Victaulic said in a July 15 complaint to the Court of International Trade (Victaulic Company v. United States, CIT #22-00022).
The Commerce Department in July 18 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade flipped its positions on whether a particular market situation adjustment distorts the cost of production of a welded line pipe input and whether an adjustment should be made to antidumping duty respondent Nexteel Co.'s constructed value for sales of non-prime goods. The agency conformed to the trade court's ruling, finding a PMS doesn't exist and recalculating CVD without the non-prime goods adjustment, leaving respondents Nexteel and SeAH Steel Corp. with 1.12% and zero percent dumping rates, respectively. However, the agency stuck by its decision to reclassify Nexteel's reported losses over its suspended production lines (Nexteel Co. et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03898).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Aluminum Extrusion Fair Trade Committee (AEFTC) should not be allowed to intervene in a case contesting CBP's finding that Global Aluminum Distributor and Hialeah Aluminum Supply evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio argued. Filing an opposition brief at the Court of International Trade on July 13, with the support of Global Aluminum, Kingtom argued that AEFTC's motion is untimely, it failed to show a conditional right to intervene and the committee cannot intervene based on a shared claim or defense (Global Aluminum Distributor v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00198).
Adverse price affects from imports do not have to be the main driver of injury for the International Trade Commission to reach an affirmative injury finding in an antidumping duty investigation, said Novus International, an intervenor supporting the ITC's challenged affirmative injury determination in the AD duty investigations on methionine from Spain and Japan, in a brief filed July 14 (Adisseo Espana and Adisseo USA v. U.S., CIT #21-00562).