CBP improperly denied importer Software Brokers of America, doing business as Intcomex, the temporary exclusion from International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs on China for in-transit merchandise, the importer argued in a Dec. 5 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Software Brokers of America d/b/a Intcomex v. United States, CIT # 25-00381).
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. will appeal a recent Court of International Trade decision upholding the Commerce Department's exclusion of seven types of bricks imported by Fedmet Resources Corp. from the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on magnesia carbon bricks from China (see 2510090016). The trade court said the exclusion of the bricks comports with a 2014 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision, which led to the standard that the addition of any amount of alumina to a magnesia carbon brick excludes it from the orders. The case was filed by Fedmet to contest the scope ruling, which came after a referral in an AD/CVD evasion case, on 11 of Fedmet's brick types. After CIT initially remanded the case to address the CAFC ruling, Commerce said seven of Fedmet's brick types are excluded from the order, since they have a non-zero alumina content. The government in appealing the case joins the petitioner, who has already asked the appellate court for expedited consideration of the matter (see 2511260067) (Fedmet Resources v. United States, CIT # 23-00117).
Four related exporters, led by Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret, filed a stipulation of dismissal in an antidumping duty case it filed earlier this year at the Court of International Trade (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States, CIT # 25-00137).
Trade lawyers are split over the necessity of filing lawsuits now to secure potential International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariff refunds should the Supreme Court invalidate them, according to interviews with lawyers.
Plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation "have every intention" to appeal their case challenging the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China to the Supreme Court, Matt Nicely, lead counsel for the companies, told the Court of International Trade during a Nov. 4 status conference.
The Commerce Department can limit its comparator group in assessing whether a certain enterprise or industry is the "predominant user" of a subsidy for purposes of determining de facto specificity, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Dec. 5. Judges Jimmie Reyna, Sharon Prost and Raymond Chen said the limitation on the comparator group must only be "sufficiently reasonable."
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Nebraska man Byungmin Chae on Dec. 3 urged the entire U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to reconsider his second case against the results of his April 2018 customs broker license examination after the court dismissed the case on the basis that Chae should have raised his claims in his first case on the test (Byungmin Chae v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1379).
Petitioner Brooklyn Bedding's argument against two issues in a case on the antidumping duty investigation on Indonesian mattresses amount to "mere disagreement" with the Commerce Department's decisions, "falling far short of the required showing," the U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 3 reply brief (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1674).