Importer IKKO International Trading on Oct. 29 asked the Court of International Trade for a six-month extension, until April 30, to remain on the case management calendar. The U.S. consented to the move, which comes in a tariff classification suit on sushi ginger. IKKO said the issue is being litigated in another CIT case, Wismettac Asian Foods v. U.S., adding that it's considering asking for a stay in the present action. IKKO said it has taken longer to finalize its approach than anticipated "due to the departure from the undersigned firm of the attorney who previously had primary responsibility for this litigation" (IKKO International Trading v. U.S., CIT # 22-00119).

The U.S. agreed to pay importer Dis Vintage $34,591.27 in duty refunds and interest payments in a tariff classification spat on worn clothing. The parties filed a stipulated judgment with the Court of International Trade on Nov. 1, agreeing to classify the goods under the following five subheadings: 6104.63.20, dutiable at 28.2%; 6309.00.00, free of duty; 6203.20.20, dutiable at 19.7%; 6203.43.40, dutiable at 27.9%; and 6110.30.30, dutiable at 32% (Dis Vintage v. United States, CIT # 23-00033).

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Commerce Department agreed to remove a prohibition on Red Sun Energy Long An Co. that had blocked the exporter from using the agency's exclusion certification process to enter its solar cells duty-free from Vietnam. The parties filed a stipulation for judgment with the Court of International Trade on Nov. 1, ending Red Sun's challenge to Commerce's anti-circumvention finding on solar cells from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam (Red Sun Energy Long An Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00229).

Individual importer Timothy Brown filed a complaint on Oct. 31 at the Court of International Trade seeking nearly $20,000 in duty drawback related to the shipment of a Porsch 911 Turbo S luxury vehicle. Brown said he in 2017 imported the vehicle, which was classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8703.24.0190, dutiable at 2.5% (Timothy Brown v. United States, CIT # 20-03733).

The Commerce Department announced that it increased the antidumping margin for a mandatory respondent and nonselected respondents in remand results of a review on mobile access equipment from China after recalculating costs for accuracy. The mandatory respondent’s rate rose from 31.7% to 37.2%, while the nonselected respondents’ rose from 51.83% to 56.5% (Coalition of American Manufacturers of Mobile Access Equipment v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 22-00152).

Importer Tingley Rubber Corp. told the Court of International Trade that its latex rubber boot savers should be classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6401.99.30, dutiable at 25%, and not under subheading 6401.92.9000, dutiable at 37.5%. The company filed a complaint on Oct. 31 after initially filing its case in 2020. The company said CBP issued a HQ ruling in 2019 confirming that its boot savers properly fit under subheading 6401.99.30. Tingley's preferred subheading covers footwear that covers the knee and is designed for use without closures. Meanwhile, subheading 6401.92.90 covers other footwear that covers the ankle but not the knee (Tingley Rubber Corp. v. United States, CIT # 20-03711).

The Court of International Trade issued a confidential decision on Oct. 31 remanding in part and sustaining in part CBP's finding that importer Scioto Valley Woodworking wasn't evading antidumping and countervailing duties on wooden cabinets from China. Judge Lisa Wang gave the parties until Dec. 2 to review the decision for confidential information. Petitioner American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance brought the suit to ask whether CBP's Office of Rulings and Regulations can reverse evidence-based evasion findings made by CBP's Trade Remedy Law Enforcement Directorate (see 2403120038) (American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance v. U.S., CIT # 23-00140).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit rejected an argument from a Chinese engineering professor who said his illegal export shouldn't have been subject to national security controls, which made the export subject to a higher base offense (U.S. v. Yi-Chi Shih, 9th Cir. # 23-3718).

The U.S. once again filed a motion to dismiss a case brought by an aluminum rod importer that alleged the Commerce Department had denied a Section 232 tariff exclusion request by pointing to promises made by the importer’s domestic competitor. The U.S. called most of the importer’s claims untimely and unactionable (Prysmian Cables and Systems USA v. U.S., CIT # 24-00101).