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).

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).

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 government's interpretation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on drawn stainless steel sinks from China would lead to "absurd" results and would plainly expand the scope of the orders to out-of-scope items, importer R.H. Peterson told the Court of International Trade on Oct. 29 in a reply brief (R.H. Peterson v. United States, CIT # 20-00099).

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).

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).

Responding to a June 20 motion for judgment by an importer of mineral-based countertops, the U.S. said Oct. 28 that the importer’s products were covered by antidumping and countervailing duties on quartz surface products from China that the importer was allegedly attempting to evade (Vanguard Trading Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00253).

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

Exporter CVB voluntarily dismissed its appeal on Oct. 29 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury finding on mattresses from various Asian countries (CVB v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1504).