The U.S. settled its case, which involved $5.8 million in unpaid duties and penalties against tire importer Katana Racing Inc. on Aug. 29, with more of the details appearing in a Sept. 3 filing. Katana agreed to pay $2.35 million (United States v. Katana Racing, CIT # 19-00125).

The U.S. asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to stay two appeals on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in light of the government's petition for writ of certiorari before the Supreme Court in a separate case on the tariffs. The U.S. said "it would be a waste of judicial resources for this Court to hear and decide this case before the Supreme Court has resolved the proceedings before it," in light of the "rapid schedule" proposed before the high court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's recent "unanimous ruling on jurisdiction."

The Court of International Trade ruled Aug. 13, in a decision made public Sept. 5, that exporter BASF Corp.’s food additive Betatene was properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 2106 as a dietary supplement.

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 3 dropped two cases on the applicability of Section 301 exclusions from its customs case management calendar for lack of prosecution. Both cases were placed on the calendar and not removed from it at the expiration of the "applicable period of time of removal." One case, brought by Warby Parker, was brought to contest CBP's denial of its protest over whether Section 301 duties apply to its frames and lenses classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9004.90.0000 and secondary subheading 9903.88.15 (see 2303070024). The other case, filed by MTD Products, was filed to contest CBP's denial of its protest claiming its gasoline engines of HTS subheading 8407.90.1020, free of duty, and secondary subheading 9903.88.02, should be exempt from Section 301 duties under secondary subheading 9903.88.12 (see 2309130063) (Warby Parker v. U.S., CIT # 23-00042) (MTD Products v. U.S., CIT # 23-00184).

Customs broker applicant Brandon Chen, who challenged a number of CBP’s 2022 licensing exam questions at the trade court seeking credit for at least one more, succeeded Sept. 4. He will receive a passing score on the test (Brandon Chen v. United States, CIT # 24-00208).

The U.S. and importer Crown Cork & Seal settled a customs penalty case against the importer, filing a stipulated judgment at the Court of International Trade on Sept. 2. The U.S. filed the suit alleging that Crown Cork & Seal misclassified its metal can lid imports, valued at around $51 million, underpaying around $1.3 million in duties between 2004 and 2009. The trade court previously denied Crown Cork's bid to dismiss fraud and gross negligence claims in the case (see 2302280053), and the case unsuccessfully went through court-led mediation (see 2305300066). The terms of the settlement are unknown (U.S. v. Crown Cork & Seal USA, CIT # 21-00361).

Importer Eteros Technologies and its CEO, Aaron McKellar, filed an amended complaint in a court in Washington state in their case against CBP for allegedly retaliating against the company and its executive for winning a customs case at the Court of International Trade. The complaint added two more executives, Amanda James, director of strategy and business development at Eteros Canada and Eteros USA, and Ryan Bjergso, a senior executive at Eteros USA, alleging that both also suffered "adverse" immigration consequences due to CBP's retaliatory actions (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, W.D. Wash. # 2:25-00181).

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 3 sustained the Commerce Department's second remand results in the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel plate from Italy, in a confidential decision. In a letter to the litigants, Judge Claire Kelly gave the parties until Sept. 9 to review the confidential information in the decision. The case was previously before Judge Stephen Vaden, who sent back the agency's use of a quarterly cost methodology to analyze exporter Officine Tecnosider's sales during the review (see 2409170068). On remand, Commerce again chose to calculate the respondent's costs quarterly, rather than annually (see 2501160082) (Officine Tecnosider SRL v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00001).

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

Knit underwear importer Viecura opposed the government’s motion for judgment in Viecura’s classification case Aug. 29 after arguing that a number of material facts are still in dispute (Viecura v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00154).