Importer Houston Shutters properly filed suit under Section 1581(i), the Court of International Trade's "residual" jurisdiction, in its case on the Commerce Department's decision not to initiate a changed circumstances review regarding whether wood shutter parts were within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on Chinese millwork products, CIT held on Jan. 29. Concurrently, the court dismissed a separate but identical suit from Houston Shutters filed under Section 1581(c).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

An importer filed a lawsuit Jan. 27 challenging the application of informal CBP guidance on Section 232 steel and aluminum content valuation to its entries of machine screws and fasteners.

The Court of International Trade erred in holding that the government's claim for unpaid duties against a surety company on an entry liquidated in 2009 was "time-barred" and violated an implied requirement that a demand for payment be made in a reasonable time, the U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its opening brief. Without reversal, "an incorrect pronouncement of the law" will persist, and this error will "truncate the Government's collection rights by denying it the full amount of time provided by" the statute to open a suit against a surety (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance, Fed. Cir. # 25-2009).

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 27 agreed to importer Atlas Power's preferred classification for its Nvidia Crypto Mining Processor 170HX printed circuit assemblies, though it ultimately ruled that the products failed to qualify for three different exclusions from Section 301 China tariffs.

In a Jan. 23 motion for judgment for its test case regarding the classification of heat blanket controllers, importer Kehoe Component Sales argued that its products were “automatic regulators” of electricity under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9032, not “bases … for electric control or the distribution of electricity” under heading 8537 (Kehoe Component Sales v. United States, CIT #19-00007).

The U.S. on Jan. 23 opposed importer G&H Diversified Manufacturing's motion for a ruling from the Court of International Trade on the importer's deposition notices directed at federal agencies in the company's case seeking an exclusion from Section 232 steel tariffs. The government asked the court to issue an order that G&H's notice be limited to one notice to the government referencing CBP, "the only agency against which G&H" has a claim, and not the Bureau of Industry and Security (G&H Diversified Manufacturing v. United States, CIT # 22-00130).

Importer Arc Polymers launched a customs case at the Court of International Trade on Jan. 23 concerning the classification of its polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin scrap. Arc argued that CBP improperly classified the goods as "other" PET products under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 3907.61.0050, dutiable at 6.5%, instead of under duty-free subheading 3915.10.00 as ethylene polymer waste (Arc Polymers v. United States, CIT # 26-00823).

The Court of International Trade erred in classifying Target General Merchandise's string light models under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9405 as lamps not specified elsewhere in the tariff schedule rather than as electric lamps under either heading 8543 or 8539, Target argued in its opening brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Target General Merchandise v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 26-1037).

The Commerce Department properly selected Germany as the third-country comparison market for determining antidumping duty respondent Prochamp's normal value in the AD investigation on preserved mushrooms from the Netherlands, the U.S. and Prochamp argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Giorgio Foods v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-2090).