Acer America and its repair and service subsidiary joined the massive Section 301 litigation, alleging in a Nov. 1 complaint at the Court of International Trade that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative ran afoul of the 1974 Trade Act and the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act when it imposed the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports. Acer’s complaint cites tariff exposure to 16 classifications of goods on List 3 and four on List 4A, including for PCs, speakers and projectors. Acer’s law firm is Akin Gump, which crafted the first-filed HMTX Industries-Jasco Products complaint in September 2020 that springboarded the roughly 3,800 nearly identical actions to follow, all seeking to have the tariff rulemakings vacated and the duties refunded with interest. HMTX-Jasco is now the designated sample case, and Akin Gump’s deadline is Nov. 15 for filing papers supporting its Aug. 2 motion for judgment on the agency record. It’s the final entry on the court’s April 13 scheduling order. Oral argument is expected next, possibly as soon as December (Acer America Corporation v. U.S., CIT #21-00575).

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

Ball bearings importer Wermex filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade Oct. 29, contesting CBP's reliquidation of its entries after being erroneously covered by injunctions, when the entries should have been deemed liquidated or been liquidated in line with the final results of the relevant AD review.

The Commerce Department again dropped its particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test in an antidumping review, despite continuing to find that a PMS existed during the review. Dropping the adjustment in Oct. 29 remand results at the Court of International Trade, Commerce said it fulfilled the terms of its voluntary remand request in the case, explaining that the court ruled in other cases that the agency is not allowed to make such an adjustment when finding normal value (NEXTEEL Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #20-03868).

Three Court of International Trade cases filed by Janssen Ortho should be assigned to Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves and stayed, Janssen argued in an Oct. 27 brief at CIT now that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued its opinion in the appeal. In April, the Federal Circuit upheld Choe-Groves' decision that the active pharmaceutical ingredient imported by Janssen in one of its HIV medications was eligible for duty-free treatment (see 2104260034). The API was darunavir ethanolate (Janseen Ortho LLC v. United States, CIT #13-00052, #14-00094, #14-00198).

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 29 granted the Commerce Department's request for a voluntary remand in an antidumping duty case, so the agency can review whether it was appropriate to rely on supplemental questionnaire responses, seeing as it couldn't conduct an on-site verification. The court found that Commerce gave enough evidence of "substantial and legitimate" concerns to remand the case and further explore whether the "novel legal approach that Commerce took during the [COVID-19] pandemic" can be properly supported. The court also noted that on-site verification may now be possible given eased travel restrictions (Ellwood City Forge Company, et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00007).

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

The Court of International Trade issued a confidential opinion on Oct. 29 in a case over an antidumping duty evasion finding from CBP, sustaining in part and remanding in part Customs' final decision. In the Enforce and Protect Act investigation, Diamond Tools Technology was found to have evaded the AD order on diamond sawblades from China. The company then challenged this decision at CIT, arguing against CBP's retroactive application of the Commerce Department's anticurmvention determination to include diamond sawblades from Thailand in the AD order on the sawblades from China, among other things. Diamond Tools also alleged due process violations against the EAPA process (Diamond Tools Technology LLC v. United States, CIT #20-00060).

Importer BASF Corporation filed five complaints at the Court of International Trade on Oct. 28, challenging CBP's tariff classification of three of its vitamins and supplements. For two of the three substances, BASF is seeking classification under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 2936.

Importer TCW Trends resumed litigation in its case filed in 2012 at the Court of International Trade over the rate of duty paid on its men's knit tops and pants imports. Filing a complaint on Oct. 29, TCW said that its tops and pants were made in a Qualifying Industrial Zone in Alexandria, Egypt, making the goods eligible for preferential duty-free treatment under General Note 3(a)(v) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. The entries were liquidated under HTS subheading 6103.43.15 and 6105.20.20. Ultimately, CBP's finding that the merchandise didn't meet the duty-free eligibility requirements under the QIZ program was contrary to law, the complaint said (TCW Trends, Inc. v. United States, CIT #12-00166).