The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 19 affirmed the Court of International Trade's dismissal of Nebraska man Byungmin Chae's second case on one question in the April 2018 customs broker license exam. Judges Timothy Dyk, Jimmie Reyna and Kara Stoll agreed with the trade court that the case should be dismissed "on the basis of claim preclusion."
Importer BASF Corp. pushed back July 2 against a U.S. attempt to seek reconsideration of Court of International Trade Judge Joseph Laroski's decision that BASF’s fish oil should be classified as fish extracts, not as food preparations (see 2507020064) (BASF Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 13-00318) (se.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
CBP illegally subjected importer Raymond Geddes & Company's pencils to antidumping duties on cased pencils from China, since the company's pencils are made in the Philippines, Raymond Geddes argued in a Nov. 14 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The importer said CBP improperly applied a scope ruling on a separate importer, School Specialty, to its goods (Raymond Geddes & Company v. United States, CIT # 25-00265).
The Commerce Department on Nov. 17 flipped its position on remand in a case on a new shipper review, finding that exporter Co May Import-Export Company didn't make a "bona fide sale" of subject merchandise during the review period (Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, CIT # 24-00126).
The trade court must remand the Commerce Department’s determination that ceramic tile from India was neither dumped nor subsidized, because Commerce wrongly failed to collapse or find affiliation for multiple respondents, a petitioner said in a Nov. 17 motion for judgment (Coalition for Fair Trade in Ceramic Tile v. United States, CIT # 25-00095).
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Two importers, SAM HPRP Chemicals, dba SAM Nutrition, and Zak Designs, filed identical complaints at the trade court Nov. 14 challenging President Donald Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose global tariffs (Zak Designs v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CIT # 25-00266) (SAM HPRP Chemicals Inc. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CIT # 25-00267).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 17 issued its mandate in a countervailing duty case on the application of the Commerce Department's cross-ownership regulation to respondent Gujarat Fluorochemicals in the CVD investigation on polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin from India (see 2510080027). Last month, the court said the regulation turns on whether the purpose of the subsidy provided to a cross-owned input provider "is to benefit the production of both the input and downstream products." The court said the Court of International Trade was right to reject Commerce's application of this regulation to Gujarat (Gujarat Fluorochemicals v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1268).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 17 issued its mandate in the massive litigation on the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China. The importers who challenged the tariffs didn't file an appeal of the matter to the Supreme Court prior to the issuance of the mandate. Last month, the court upheld the tariffs, finding them to be a valid exercise of authority under Section 307(a)(1)(C) (see 2509250028). The court said the statute's permission to "modify" Section 301 action where it's "no longer appropriate," allows the U.S. trade representative to ramp up the tariffs if the original action is "insufficient" to achieve its "stated purpose" (HMTX Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).