The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 13 order dismissed importer Kuester Systems Mexico's customs case on the classification of the company's motor vehicle parts. The trade court case was a protective filing while the company negotiated with CBP, S. Richard Shostak, counsel for Kuester, said in an email to Trade Law Daily. CBP allowed a related protest, recognizing the importer's claim that the goods qualified for duty-free NAFTA treatment, Shostak said. The CIT suit concerned certain motor vehicle parts classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8708.29.5160 (Kuester Systems Mexico S de RL v. U.S., CIT # 22-00331).
Exporter Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer and importer Repwire failed to argue that the Commerce Department could only limit respondents in an antidumping duty review when the number of respondents is large administratively, petitioner Southwire Co. said in its reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Should the appellate court find that Jin Tiong and Repwire didn't fail to exhaust their administrative remedies, the decision not to assign Jin Tiong a separate rate rested on the exporter's "failure to submit a timely" separate rate application, the petitioner argued (Repwire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1933).
US Offers 'Desperate Reaches' to Fend Off Injunction in Case on UFLPA Entity Listing, Company Argues
The U.S. failed to fulfill its "simple but fundamental obligation to explain itself" in a lawsuit brought by a Chinese printer cartridge maker challenging its addition to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, the company, Ninestar Corp., said in a reply brief supporting its motion for a preliminary injunction against the listing. Ninestar dubbed the government's response to the PI motion a series of "distractions and desperate reaches," including the U.S. claim that the Court of International Trade lacks jurisdiction because a presumptive ban on Ninestar's goods is not an "embargo" (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
The Commerce Department properly dropped its subsidy finding in a countervailing duty investigation for respondent Gujarat Fluorochemicals concerning a 30-year land lease to one of its affiliates, Inox Wind Limited, by India's State Industrial Development Corp., the Court of International Trade ruled in an Oct. 13 opinion. Judge Timothy Stanceu defended his prior remand order in the case, which said that based on Commerce's interpretation of its regulation, the subsidy finding couldn't be legal.
A U.K. appeals court last week granted an injunction blocking a Gazprom subsidiary from suing its lenders in a Russian court over an abandoned gas project. The England and Wales Court of Appeal said it was the proper place to bring RusChemAlliance's claim against Germany-based Deutsche Bank, adding that there was no good reason not to impose the injunction.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
An "importer" for the purposes of assessing excise taxes must be involved in physically bringing goods into the U.S., the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled. Opining on whether tire wholesaler Texas Truck Parts & Tire was properly assessed excise tax on taxable tires, Judge Charles Eskridge said that since the company didn't arrange any of the transport of the tires from China nor secure their release from a customs-bonded warehouse, it is not an importer.
Importer Kuester Systems Mexico on Oct. 12 moved to dismiss its customs case at the Court of International Trade on the classification of its motor vehicle parts. The company brought its suit in December to contest CBP's denial of its protest regarding certain motor vehicle parts classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8708.29.5160. The company said the goods should receive duty-free treatment under the USMCA. Counsel for the importer didn't reply to request for comment (Kuester Systems Mexico S de RL v. U.S., CIT # 22-00331).
The U.S. opposed an expedited briefing schedule from Chinese printer cartridge manufacturer Ninestar Corp. in the company's case against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Ninestar's motion would hold the government's motion to dismiss in abeyance pending resolution of the company's bid for a preliminary injunction. The U.S. said "it is reversible error for the Court to delay consideration of its jurisdiction until after ruling on the motion for a preliminary injunction" (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).