Importer American Eel Depot severed various entries from two of its cases at the Court of International Trade contesting the imposition of Section 301 duties on its frozen roasted eel entries (see 2106110061). American Eel brought its cases in 2021 to challenge CBP's denial of its protests claiming its eel imports originate in Europe and thus shouldn't be subject to the Section 301 tariffs on China. In one case, American Eel severed one entry from the case, and in another, it severed 22 entries from the case. In the first case, only one entry remains challenged by the importer, while 16 remain challenged in the second case. The company said it determined the entries shouldn't be included in the cases upon "further review." Counsel for the importer declined to comment (American Eel Depot v. United States, CIT #s 21-00278, -00279).
Importer Prysmian Cables and Systems, USA filed a motion for judgment June 5 after a host of its other claims against the U.S. were dismissed in January (see 2501220064). It said that the Commerce Department wrongly rejected two of its Section 232 exclusion requests by claiming an authority based on national security that it didn’t actually have and two more by treating prospective presidential proclamations as retrospective (Prysmian Cables and Systems v. U.S., CIT # 24-00101).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Importer Hellbender filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on June 6 arguing that its electronic components are of Taiwanese origin, not Chinese origin, and are thus exempt from Section 301 duties (Hellbender v. United States, CIT # 24-00104).
The Commerce Department failed to follow the "procedural prerequisites" for changing its position on remand when using adverse facts available against exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe in an antidumping duty review, the Court of International Trade held on June 5. Remanding the review for a third time, Judge Stephen Vaden said Commerce ran "afoul of the most basic of administrative law requirements" when it "falsely claimed to keep its rationale the same" for applying AFA "while quietly changing its position."
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated between June 2 and June 4 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
Following a voluntary remand which saw the Commerce Department maintain a prior determination, petitioner ArcelorMittal Tubular Products said that DOJ was inventing a new, post-hoc rule that entities couldn’t be collapsed across borders (ArcelorMittal Tubular Products v. United States, CIT # 24-00039).
The U.S. disagreed May 30 with an importer’s claim that the Commerce Department’s post-remand scope ruling on wood mouldings and millwork products expanded relevant antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders to cover “an infinite universe of products.” The orders are simply intentionally broad, it said (Hardware Resources v. United States, CIT # 23-00150).
Chinese exporter Yingli Energy on June 3 supported its argument that the Court of International Trade should strike down the Commerce Department’s usual presumption that exporters in non-market economies are under government control (Yingli Energy (China) Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00131).