The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 30 issued its mandate in an appeal related to the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China. The court issued its decision in the case concurrently with a decision on the 2018-19 review of the same order, though appellants in the 2018-19 review case recently filed a motion for reconsideration regarding alleged legal errors committed by the court during its review (see 2506250040). No such motion for reconsideration was filed in the appeal on the 2019-20 review, which concerned respondent Carbon Activated Tianjin's challenge to the Commerce Department's use of Malaysian import data under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4402.90.1000, which covers coconut-shell charcoal, as the surrogate value for coal-based carbonized material, an input of activated carbon, among other issues (see 2505090048) (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2413).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 30 issued its mandate in a customs case on the classification of 14 mixtures of frozen fruits and vegetables. In May, the appellate court upheld the Court of International Trade's classification of the mixtures under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 0811.90.80, the residual category for "other" frozen fruit (see 2505090024). The court held that the fruit ingredients give the mixtures their "essential character," making heading 0811 the proper heading for the products (Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2093).

Importer Cyber Power System's accessory cables are general "power cables," not "telecommunications cables," the U.S. said in a cross-motion for judgment June 27 (Cyber Power Systems (USA) v. U.S., CIT # 21-00200).

CBP unlawfully excluded importer Agri Spray Drones' entries of drone controllers without explanation, the importer argued in a June 30 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Agri Spray Drones v. United States, CIT # 25-00141).

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

The U.S. moved the Court of International Trade to dismiss importer Tri State Honey's suit against CBP's detention of its 11 honey shipments, arguing that the case was untimely filed. The government said that since the case had to be brought 180 days from CBP's protest denial, which was April 25, and Tri State filed suit on April 29, "the case is untimely and therefore barred" (Tri State Honey v. United States, CIT # 25-00080).

A knit underwear importer’s products weren’t correctly classified under the secondary Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9817 for clothing “specially designed” for “physically or mentally handicapped persons,” the U.S. said June 27, which would have exempted them from a 15% antidumping duty on their products (Viecura v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00154).

Importer Wabtec told the Court of International Trade that a recent CIT decision calls into question the Commerce Department's practice of covering upstream components of goods actually imported or sold in the U.S. in antidumping cases. Filing a notice of supplemental authority on June 27, Wabtec said that while CIT Judge Timothy Stanceu didn't affirmatively resolve this question, his discussion is "highly relevant to the matter here" (Wabtec Corporation v. U.S., CIT #s 23-00160, -00161).

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

Importer Briggs & Stratton on June 26 voluntarily dropped its lawsuit at the Court of International Trade, which was brought to contest CBP's assessment of excess duties, taxes and fees on its engine parts and components (see 2301250071). The importer argued that the duties were added due to clerical and technical errors. The case was previously dismissed for lack of prosecution, though the trade court re-added it to the court's docket after the company asked for relief (see 2502040015). Counsel for Briggs & Stratton didn't respond to a request for comment on the reason for dismissal (Briggs & Stratton Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00014).