CIT Drops 8 Customs Cases for Lack of Prosecution
The Court of International Trade dismissed eight customs cases for lack of prosecution, noting that all cases were previously placed on the customs case management calendar but weren't removed "at the expiration of the applicable period of time of removal."
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.
Six of the cases were brought by exporter ArcelorMittal Long Products Canada G.P. and were previously dismissed for lack of prosecution. The trade court vacated the dismissals, however, after ArcelorMittal said the extension deadline was overlooked "by virtue of a calendering mistake" (see 2402090053). The cases concerned the classification of the company's steel wire rod products (ArcelorMittal Long Products Canada G.P. v. United States, CIT #s 21-00037, -00039, -00040, -00041, -00042, -00043).
In an identical customs case brought by ArcelorMittal, however, the exporter and the U.S. agreed to settle the matter, with the government agreeing to exclude certain of the exporter's products from Section 232 steel and aluminum duties (ArcelorMittal Long Products Canada G.P. v. United States, CIT # 21-00038).
Another case was brought by importer Nutricia North America to contest the classification of its gastrointestinal, metabolic, metabolic PKU and neurology products classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2106.90.9989, dutiable at 6.4% (see 2301300059). Nutricia claimed its products should be classified under subheadings 3004.50.5040, 3004.90.9140 or 9817.00.96, free of duty (Nutricia North America v. United States, CIT # 23-00017).
In the eighth case dismissed, Briggs & Stratton Corp. argued that CBP improperly assessed excess duties, taxes and fees on its engine parts and components due to clerical and technical errors (see 2301250071) (Briggs & Stratton Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00014).