Fish oil importer BASF Corp. sought reconsideration of the Court of International Trade’s May 2 ruling that its fish oil ethyl ester concentrates are “extracts of fish” under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 1603, not “food preparations” under heading 2106 (see 2505020018). It said the court “overlooked” Explanatory Note 16.03 for heading 1603 to create an impracticably broad definition of "fish extracts" (BASF Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 13-00318).
The Court of International Trade in a confidential order on June 5 sustained in part and remanded in part the Commerce Department's final results in the new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. AD petitioner Catfish Farmers of America brought the suit to challenge the 2022-23 new shipper review of Vietnamese exporter Co May Import Export Company, which granted the company a de minimis dumping rate. The petitioner argued Co May didn't actually make a bona fide sale in the U.S. during the review period (Catfish Farmers of America v. U.S., CIT # 24-00126).
Mirror finish importer Mirror Metals requested dismissal May 30 of its 2021 suit against the U.S. The case never saw the filing of a complaint (Mirror Metals, Inc. v. United States, CIT # 21-00213).
The U.S. and Fortune Energy agreed June 4 to settle a customs penalty case alleging that the importer lied about the composition of its aluminum extrusions in entry paperwork to avoid paying antidumping duties (United States v. Fortune Energy, CIT # 23-00040).
The Supreme Court on June 5 said the Mexican government failed to "plausibly allege" that seven U.S. gun manufacturers "aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers." As a result, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) bars the lawsuit, a unanimous court held.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade granted importer APS Auto Parts Specialist's voluntary dismissals of its two cases seeking Section 301 exclusions. APS challenged CBP's denial of its protest, claiming that its steel side protective attachment auto parts of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8708.29.5060 qualify for Section 301 tariff exclusions under secondary subheading 9903.88.45. The importer dismissed the cases on May 28 (see 2505280045) (APS Auto Parts Specialist v. United States, CIT #s 21-00233, 21-00268).
Responding to the environmental group Maui and Hector’s Dolphin Defenders NZ (see 2504280061, the New Zealand government and the United States each said that the environmental group was “fundamentally misunderstand[ing]” how the National Marine Fisheries Service conducts comparability analyses and was wrongly pointing to a typographical error to support its conclusion as to the remaining population of endangered Maui dolphins (Maui and Hector's Dolphin Defenders NZ v. National Marine Fisheries Service, CIT # 24-00218).
The U.S. sought partial dismissal May 7 of power cables importer PowerTec Solutions’ 2022 case seeking Section 301 duty refunds. Specifically, it said that one of the importer’s administrative protests was insufficient to support a subsequent legal challenge (PowerTec Solutions International v. United States, CIT # 22-00322).
In a complaint brought to the Court of International Trade on May 30, exporters Kumar Industries and Bajaj Healthcare Limited pushed back against the Commerce Department’s review of the antidumping duty order on Indian-origin glycine. Kumar was hit with adverse facts available after the Commerce Department found it failed to adequately report affiliation with four other companies (Kumar Industries v. United States, CIT # 25-00081).