Importer BASF Corporation will appeal a recent Court of International Trade decision regarding the proper tariff classification of BASF's food additive Betatene. In an August ruling, the trade court said the importer's product was properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 2106 as a dietary supplement (see 2509050057). CIT Judge Lisa Wang said that the products weren’t general-use “provitamins,” as BASF argued, because the preparation they underwent for tableting made them not suitable for general commercial use. BASF will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (BASF Corporation v. United States, CIt # 12-00422).
The International Trade Commission failed to adequately consider "key market data" when reaching an affirmative critical circumstances determination in the injury proceeding on low speed personal transportation vehicles from China, importer Vexas, doing business as Atlas, said in an Oct. 14 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Vexas v. United States, CIT # 25-00206).
The Commerce Department erred in its selection of a benchmark to value a subsidized lease provided to countervailing duty respondent Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret's affiliate, Nur Gemicilik, Kaptan argued in an Oct. 11 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 25-00225).
The Supreme Court on Oct. 14 denied four members of the Blackfeet Nation's attempt to intervene in the lead cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
Two trade associations -- the National Fisheries Institute and the Restaurant Law Center -- and 10 seafood importers challenged the National Marine Fisheries Service's comparability findings of 240 fisheries across 46 nations (see 2509020014), which will lead to an import ban on all seafood products from these fisheries effective Jan. 1, 2026, at the Court of International Trade (National Fisheries Institute v. United States, CIT # 25-00223).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 10 issued its mandate after affirming the final results of the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on aluminum wire and cable from China (see 2508190041). In August, the appellate court upheld the Commerce Department's decision to reject exporter Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer's response to a separate rate questionnaire that already has been rescinded. The court said "Commerce has broad discretion to set and enforce its regulatory procedures and deadlines" (Repwire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1933).
The Commerce Department improperly attributed freight and marine insurance income to antidumping duty respondent Suncity Metals and Tubes during the 2022-23 administrative review of the AD order on Indian-origin welded stainless pressure pipe, the respondent argued in an Oct. 9 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Suncity Metals and Tubes v. United States, CIT # 25-00222).
Mediation in a customs suit at the Court of International Trade on CBP's detention of importer Inspired Ventures' tire entries didn't result in a settlement, Judge Claire Kelly said in a report of mediation filed on Oct. 9 (Inspired Ventures v. United States, CIT # 24-00062).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held oral argument in importer Nutricia's customs suit on the classification of various of the company's medical foods with Judges Sharon Prost, Richard Taranto and Leonard Stark probing Nutricia's claim that its products are "medicaments" and not "food preparations." During the argument, which was held on Oct. 8 in Boston as part of the court's efforts to schedule arguments outside Washington, D.C., Taranto stressed that the case largely turns on the definition of the term "dietetic" (Nutricia North America v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1436).
The Commerce Department properly decided not to treat accrued interest on unpaid antidumping duties as an indirect selling expense for AD respondent Koehler Paper in the 2021-22 administrative review of the AD order on thermal paper from Germany, the Court of International Trade held on Oct. 10. Judge Gary Katzmann said Commerce reasonably found the interest on the duties to not fall under the statutory or regulatory definition of an indirect selling expense, permissibly including the interest in the cost of producing the subject thermal paper.