Jacob Kopnick

Importer and jewelry distributor Gunther Mele Limited fought for its preferred classification of its custom jewelry boxes, in an Oct. 28 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Arguing that CBP previously liquidated many of its jewelry boxes at its preferred rate, Gunther Mele also said that the clear make up of the boxes should qualify them for the importer's preferred tariff classification.

The Commerce Department's recent decision in a separate investigation that it can actually verify non-use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program appeared in litigation over a separate countervailing duty review via two sets of Oct. 29 comments on remand results filed at the Court of International Trade. The lead plaintiff in the case, Guizhou Tyre Co., attacked Commerce's decision to continue applying adverse facts available relating to the EBCP, given this reversal. The consolidated plaintiffs in the case, led by the China Manufacturers Alliance, in their own comments, argued that Commerce "has expended enormous resources and time in this action defending a position that it has itself discredited" (Guizhou Tyre Co. Ltd. v. United States, CIT #19-00032).

Importer Target General Merchandise filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade, arguing against CBP's analysis of the composition of its glitter/fabric ballet shoes. Target says the shoes should have been classified under a lower duty tariff provision for footwear with textile bottoms.

American steel giant U.S. Steel Corp. is seeking a stay in Russia-based steel company NLMK Pennsylvania's challenge to the Commerce Department's Section 232 exclusion denials for its steel entries until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rules on whether U.S. Steel can intervene in related cases. In its Oct. 27 motion at the Court of International Trade, U.S. Steel argued that "it is vital" for it to be able to intervene in the case and "represent its interests in the continued imposition of the Section 232 tariffs -- interests that will not be adequately represented by Defendant in this action" (NLMK Pennsylvania, LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00507).

Surety insurance provider Aegis Security Agency opposed on Oct. 27 the Department of Justice's bid for further discovery in a case over CBP’s attempt to collect on a bond issued by Aegis eight years after liquidation. Aegis argues that DOJ seeks to expand discovery without meeting the required standard for specificity or regard for the limitations on the scope of discovery in its request (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Company, CIT #20-03628).

Importer Sakar International Inc. filed four complaints at the Court of International Trade on Oct. 28 to challenge the classification of its smartphone and tablet covers. Made predominantly of plastic or silicone, the covers were classified by CBP under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 4202.92.45, 4202.92.90 or 4202.99.90, dutiable at either 17.6% or 20%.

The Commerce Department did not reasonably find that Chinese exporter Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export Corp. failed to rebut the presumption of de facto government control, barring the company from receiving a separate antidumping rate, the exporter argued to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its Oct. 26 opening brief. Contesting the Court of International Trade's June ruling upholding Commerce's position that ZMC did not rebut this presumption, ZMC argued that Commerce was unwilling to address arguments presented by it that explained that it wasn't possible for the Chinese government to control ZMC through the labor union that owns most of its shares. This established an "irrebuttable presumption that cannot be rebutted by any factual or legal arguments," contrary to law, the brief said.

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Solar cell exporter Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., along with JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co. and JingAo Solar Co., kicked off their challenge to the final results of the seventh administrative review of the countervailing duty order on crystaline silicone photovoltaic cells from China in an Oct. 27 complaint at the Court of International Trade. JA Solar received the all-others CVD rate, which totaled 19.28%. The companies are challenging the Commerce Department's reliance on adverse facts available related to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program due to Commerce's failure to verify non-use of the program by the respondents' U.S. customers (Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00548).

Importer DSM Nutritional Products, Inc. filed six complaints at the Court of International Trade on Oct. 27 seeking to secure its preferred Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading for its beta-carotene with stabilizers and/or anti-caking agent imports. American International Chemical also filed an identical complaint in its case seeking the same outcome. All six cases are led by Robert Seely of Grunfeld Desiderio.