CBP agreed to return the liquidation status of 830 softwood lumber entries of importer Fraserview Remanufacturing to unliquidated while it awaits further instructions from the Commerce Department on how to treat the entries following the relevant antidumping duty and countervailing duty proceedings. The U.S. and Fraserview filed a stipulation for entry of judgment at the Court of International Trade in the importer's case against CBP's erroneous designation of the entries as deemed liquidated (Fraserview Remanufacturing v. United States, CIT # 23-00063).
The government "mostly dodges" the arguments customs broker license exam taker Skeeter-Jo Stoute-Francois makes against four questions on the exam and "baselessly and repeatedly accuses" her of rewriting the challenged questions, counsel for Stoute-Francois argued in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The brief said the U.S. "advances a series of impermissible post hoc justifications, misconstrues the applicable standard of review, fails to address several of Plaintiff’s arguments, and improperly relies" on past CIT cases (Skeeter-Jo Stoute-Francois v. Janet Yellen, CIT # 24-00046).
The Pentagon's response to Chinese lidar company Hesai Technology's claims against its designation as a Chinese military company shows that the department "has no evidence" and "made no finding" that the company is "in any way connected to the Chinese military," Hesai said in a brief at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Hesai Technology Co. v. United States, D.D.C. # 24-01381).
CBP reversed its finding that importer Scioto Valley Woodworking didn't evade the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wooden cabinets and vanities from China, on remand at the Court of International Trade, finding that the evidence indicates the importer skirted the orders. CBP said that the contents of a "finished goods warehouse" owned by Alno Industry, Scioto's affiliated Malaysian supplier, and the "extent of operational control exercised by Scioto's and Alno's parent company," Qingdao Haiyan Group Co., prompted the reversal (American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance v. United States, CIT # 23-00140).
The following new lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on Jan. 30 in a case on the 2016-17 review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China. In its decision, CAFC said the Commerce Department failed to provide an "adequate explanation" regarding its treatment of overhead costs in coming up with the surrogate financial ratio (see 2412090028) (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1550).
Patent attorney Andrew Dhuey offered to appear as amicus curiae at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to defend Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden's decision rejecting an unopposed motion to redact certain confidential information from the merits decision on an AD/CVD injury determination. Dhuey, who is on the trade court's roster of pro bono counsel, said he would like to be appointed by CAFC to defend Vaden's decision, "arguing on behalf of the public interest in judicial transparency" (CVB, Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1504).
CBP unlawfully abused its authority by engaging in retaliation against employees of importer Eteros Technologies USA after the company succeeded at the Court of International Trade in overturning the agency's detention of its marijuana-related drug paraphernalia, Eteros alleged in a new complaint at the trade court (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, CIT # 25-00036).
Parts of brake discs used in airplanes are "parts of an aircraft" and properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8803, the Court of International Trade held on Jan. 30. Judge Mark Barnett said that since the parts are "used for no other purpose," require "no further processing prior" to their use in a brake disc and have "no other substantial commercial application," they should be classified as aircraft parts.
Petitioner Deer Park Glycine this week dropped its case at the Court of International Trade on the 2022 review of the countervailing duty order on glycine from India. The company has brought a host of other cases to the trade court regarding the antidumping duty and countervailing duty measures on glycine, including a 1581(i) action against the Commerce Department's decision to deny a scope ruling application from the petitioner (see 2501070087). Counsel for Deer Park declined to comment (Deer Park Glycine v. United States, CIT # 24-00268).