A manufacturer must have attributed to them all subsidies received by a cross-owned input supplier’s upstream product that is “primarily dedicated to the production of the downstream product,” a domestic petitioner said in an April 17 brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. It also argued that the “downstream product” doesn’t need to be “subject merchandise” (Gujarat Fluorochemicals v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1268).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed the government's appeal of a Court of International Trade decision scrapping a customs bond penalty action against surety firm American Home Assurance Co. The U.S. voluntarily dismissed the case (see 2404170042) (U.S. v. American Home Assurance Co., Fed. Cir. # 24-1069).

Alpinestars, an Italian exporter of motorcycle safety apparel, brought a short complaint to the Court of International Trade on April 18 (Alpinestars, SPA v. U.S., CIT # 11-00007).

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

The U.S. filed a motion to dismiss a customs suit from importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Supply, claiming that for the 33 entries at issue, the lawsuit challenging the denied protests was untimely, the importer lacked standing to sue or that the company failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted (Acquisition 362 v. United States, CIT # 24-00011).

Importer Blue Sky the Color of Imagination will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last week's Court of International Trade decision regarding the classification of the company's notebooks with calendars (see 2404100052), the notice of appeal said. In its decision, the trade court classified the goods under its own preferred Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading, 4820.10.20.10, rather than one of the subheadings advanced by Blue Sky or CBP. The judge said the court should prefer readings of the HTS that establish "conformity" across both the English and French translations of the Harmonized System, where it was used to set the HTS (Blue Sky the Color of Imagination v. U.S., CIT # 21-00624).

The U.S. voluntarily dismissed its customs penalty appeal brought against surety firm American Home Assurance Co., according to an April 17 joint stipulation of voluntarily dismissal filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (United States v. American Home Assurance Co., Fed. Cir. # 24-1069).

Parties in a customs case on the classification of human interface controllers will tell the Court of International Trade by May 20 if they will proceed with the case under "summary judgment motions or request for a trial," Judge Timothy Stanceu said in an April 16 order, noting that a status conference won't be held April 19 as originally planned. Importer Robert Bosch brought suit in 2020 to contest CBP's classification of the controllers under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8473.70.9900, dutiable at 2.6% (see 2303090055) (Robert Bosch v. U.S., CIT # 20-00028).

A trailer wheel exporter April 15 defended its motion to intervene as plaintiff-intervenor against a domestic producer’s opposition, saying that it's expressly considered an “interested party” under the Enforce and Protect Act (Dexter Distribution Group LLC v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 24-00019).

Petitioners and an Indian freshwater shrimp exporter on April 16 both filed briefs opposing each other’s motions for judgment (see 2402080060). The petitioners said that the exporter was attempting to go against the Commerce Department's usual practice regarding interest expenses offsets, while the exporter claimed the petitioners had no evidence its home-market sales were destined for consumption elsewhere (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v U.S., CIT # 23-00202).