Porsche Motorsports North America will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit a Dec. 30 Court of International Trade opinion that held that the company's auto parts and tools exported to Canada for use at auto races then re-imported don't qualify for duty-free treatment, it said in a Jan. 31 notice of appeal. Porsche sought duty-free treatment for its goods brought back into the U.S. under a goods returned tariff provision for "tools of the trade." While Porsche said that its goods were exported to support race teams, the trade court said that the auto parts were exported to generate sales to race teams rather than for a professional purpose, as required by the Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9801.00.8500 (see 2201030038) (Porsche Motorsports North America v. U.S., CIT #16-00182).
Antidumping duty respondent Goodluck India Limited filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade to contest the Commerce Department's assessment of antidumping duties on its entries since they were not subject to the ADD order at the time, the company said. Goodluck participated in the antidumping duty investigation into cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel from India in which it was assigned a 33.7% cash deposit rate. The respondent then challenged this decision at CIT, which eventually overturned Commerce, affirming a final zero percent margin for Goodluck. The result was Commerce revoking the ADD order for Goodluck (Goodluck India Limited v. United States, CIT #22-00024).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Meyer Corporation filed a corrected reply brief in a key case over the use of "first sale" valuation on goods from China after its initial brief was found to not be in compliance with the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's rules. The Federal Circuit said that the contact information for Meyer's lawyers didn't match the information on the individuals' entries of appearance on the docket (see 2201240043). Meyer's lead counsel is John Peterson of Neville Peterson. Meyer's resubmission purportedly fixes this error. The brief came in Meyer's appeal based on a Court of International Trade ruling that held that first sale treatment may not be applicable to non-market economy exports (see 2201190059). Meyer argued in the brief that CIT improperly applied the "dual burden of proof" when it denied the importer first sale valuation on its cookware from China (Meyer Corporation v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1932).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should uphold a lower court decision that found that CBP's "indirect method" for weighing importer New Image Global's tobacco wraps that included the weight of additives was legally and scientifically valid, the Department of Justice said in a Jan. 27 brief. Replying to New Image's arguments to the contrary, DOJ said that CBP properly interpreted the excise tax statute to include anything added to the tobacco wraps in the weight of the wraps (New Image Global v. United States, Fed. Cir. #19-2444).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Nutricia seeks a Court of International Trade judgment overturning CBP's classification of its infant and children food formulas as food preparations of heading 2106, it said in a motion for summary judgment filed Jan. 24 in the hopes of bringing to a close an over 6-year-old test case. The importer says its formulas, intended to treat a variety of diseases and disorders in infants or children, are "medical foods" classifiable as medicaments of heading 3004 and also duty-free under special tariff provisions for articles for the handicapped under subheading 9817.00.96 (Nutricia North America v. United States, CIT #16-00008).
The Department of Justice's and defendant-intervenor Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood's arguments in favor of CBP's affirmative antidumping duty and countervailing duty evasion finding ignore the procedural rights afforded by the Administrative Procedure Act, plaintiffs American Pacific Plywood and U.S. Global Forest said in a Jan. 24 brief. DOJ and the coalition argue that the plaintiffs are only entitled to what the Enforce and Protect Act statute prescribes, but American Pacific Plywood and U.S. Global Forest said this ignores the plaintiffs' other due process rights (American Pacific Plywood v. U.S., CIT Consol #20-03914).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit sent a case back to the the D.C. U.S. District Court over whether service was properly provided to the Venezuelan government in a case on the expropriation of a French company. The appellate court said that service was not provided to the Attorney General, as required by Venezuelan law, so the case was sent back so that the French company in question, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Europe, has a chance to properly effect service (Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Europe v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, D.C. Cir. #21-7019).