US Wrong to Claim Automobile Accessories Exporter Seeking Relitigation of Ruling, Exporter Says
In its opposition to a reconsideration request in a vehicle sidebar classification case, the U.S. “misleads” the court by claiming that exporter Keystone Automotives was attempting to relitigate its position. Actually, the exporter said, its request is “based on the standard of review of the tariff exclusion” Keystone had relied on in its initial arguments (Keystone Automotive Operations v. U.S., CIT # 21-00215).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Keystone said its November motion for reconsideration (see 2411070028) was made not under the court’s Rule 59, which allows the trade court to review “a fundamental or significant flaw in the original proceeding,” but instead under Rule 54(b).
It said the U.S. “failed to recognize this” in its opposition brief (see 2501170082). Rule 54(b), it said, sets a lower standard for reconsideration of a final judgment than Rule 59, requiring only that a court had “patently” misunderstood an argument of a party, reached too far and decided an issue not presented or failed to consider important information.
The exporter is challenging the court’s ruling that an exclusion from Section 301 duties for “side protective attachments” isn’t an eo nomine provision (see 2410070030).
In its case, it said the Court of International Trade hadn’t addressed its argument regarding the standard of review in the Federal Register notice that outlined the Section 301 tariff exclusion at issue.
It disagreed with the government’s claim that Keystone was foreclosed from bringing up the issue because it hadn’t raised this argument in earlier briefings. On the contrary, “[m]uch of Plaintiff’s argument in its motion for summary judgment” was centered around the Federal Register instructions.
Keystone also took issue with the U.S. claim that “[t]he Court accounted for the entirety of the statutory language,” including the relevant phrase in U.S. Note 2 of the General Rules of Interpretation that the rules apply “unless the context otherwise requires,” in its opinion.
But while the court referred to this phrase, that wasn’t the same as it actually analyzing the impact of the language on the current proceeding, Keystone siad. It argued this was one of the cases in which context required that the general and additional rules of interpretation not apply.
It said the standard of review in the Federal Register notice established that a product is exempt from the relevant tariffs it if “meets the description in the Annex.” That’s “totally different” than the standard set forth by the general and additional rules of interpretation, it said.
And it argued that, in the alternative, its interlocutory appeal should be allowed to proceed. It pushed back on the U.S. claim that it was seeking hearing on a matter that wasn’t a controlling issue of law. Keystone isn’t “challenging the legal framework for tariff classification,” it said; instead, it's only pushing back on “whether the applicability of a Section 301 tariff exclusions must be determined only pursuant to traditional classification analysis under the GRIs.”