Customs broker applicant Brandon Chen, who challenged a number of CBP’s 2022 licensing exam questions at the trade court seeking credit for at least one more, succeeded Sept. 4. He will receive a passing score on the test (Brandon Chen v. United States, CIT # 24-00208).

The U.S. and importer Crown Cork & Seal settled a customs penalty case against the importer, filing a stipulated judgment at the Court of International Trade on Sept. 2. The U.S. filed the suit alleging that Crown Cork & Seal misclassified its metal can lid imports, valued at around $51 million, underpaying around $1.3 million in duties between 2004 and 2009. The trade court previously denied Crown Cork's bid to dismiss fraud and gross negligence claims in the case (see 2302280053), and the case unsuccessfully went through court-led mediation (see 2305300066). The terms of the settlement are unknown (U.S. v. Crown Cork & Seal USA, CIT # 21-00361).

Importer Eteros Technologies and its CEO, Aaron McKellar, filed an amended complaint in a court in Washington state in their case against CBP for allegedly retaliating against the company and its executive for winning a customs case at the Court of International Trade. The complaint added two more executives, Amanda James, director of strategy and business development at Eteros Canada and Eteros USA, and Ryan Bjergso, a senior executive at Eteros USA, alleging that both also suffered "adverse" immigration consequences due to CBP's retaliatory actions (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, W.D. Wash. # 2:25-00181).

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 3 sustained the Commerce Department's second remand results in the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel plate from Italy, in a confidential decision. In a letter to the litigants, Judge Claire Kelly gave the parties until Sept. 9 to review the confidential information in the decision. The case was previously before Judge Stephen Vaden, who sent back the agency's use of a quarterly cost methodology to analyze exporter Officine Tecnosider's sales during the review (see 2409170068). On remand, Commerce again chose to calculate the respondent's costs quarterly, rather than annually (see 2501160082) (Officine Tecnosider SRL v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00001).

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

Knit underwear importer Viecura opposed the government’s motion for judgment in Viecura’s classification case Aug. 29 after arguing that a number of material facts are still in dispute (Viecura v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00154).

The Court of International Trade last week stayed until Nov. 26 exporter Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xing) Industry's (Jiaxing Hoshine's) case against a withhold release order on silica-based products made by its parent company, Hoshine Silicon, or its subsidiaries. The parties in the case asked for the stay while Jiaxing Hoshine works its way through the administrative process (Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xing) Industry Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00048).

Surety company U.S. Specialty Insurance Company argued in an Aug. 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade that CBP failed to use transaction value to value importer Cheer Rise's garment entries. Instead, the agency arbitrarily decided to use the "fall back method" of appraisal, "rendering the appraisement unlawful," the complaint said (U.S. Specialty Insurance Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00188).

After several years of delay, plywood importer Cabinetworks Group Middlefield filed an Aug. 29 complaint alleging certain of its entries were wrongly assessed the China-wide 114.72% antidumping duty rate instead of its manufacturer’s and exporter’s 57.07% AD rate (Cabinetworks Group Middlefield v. United States, CIT # 21-00499).

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 29 sustained the Commerce Department's decision on remand not to continue applying adverse facts available to a mandatory respondent in the 2018 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China (see 2508280047) (Evolutions Flooring v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00591).