The U.S. sought reconsideration of the Court of International Trade’s May 2 ruling that importer BASF Corp.’s fish oil ethyl ester concentrates are “extracts of fish” under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 1603, not “food preparations” under heading 2106. 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) (see 2506040076).

After the Commerce Department chose on remand to again directly value antidumping duty review mandatory respondent Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies’ energy costs in an AD administrative review, the exporter said June 20 in response that the department just “recycled” its initial results (Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00068).

Importer BASF Corp. pushed back July 2 against a U.S. attempt to seek reconsideration of Court of International Trade Judge Gary Katzmann’s decision that BASF’s fish oil should be classified as fish extracts, not as food preparations (see 2506040076 and 2505020018) (BASF Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 13-00318).

Surety company Aegis Security Insurance moved the Court of International Trade on June 30 to dismiss the government's case looking to collect duties that have gone unpaid on entries of garlic imported in 2002. Aegis said the six-year statute of limitations to file such a claim runs from the date of liquidation of the underlying entries, arguing that two CIT judges have held as much and that the collections statute, 19 U.S.C. Section 1505, compels such a finding (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance, CIT # 25-00051).

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).