CBP asked the Commerce Department to weigh in on whether steel wheels from China alleged to have evaded antidumping and countervailing duties fall within the scope of the orders, CBP said in a notice posted June 28. The request is part of a CBP Enforce and Protect Act investigation into whether Vanguard National Trailer used transshipment through Thailand to evade the duties. “CBP is unable to determine whether the steel wheels exported from Thailand by Asia Wheel Co. Ltd. (Asia Wheel), which are produced from imported rectangular steel plates from China and a third country that Asia Wheel converts into rims in Thailand and welds with Chinese-origin discs in Thailand, are covered merchandise subject to the AD and CVD orders,” the agency said.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP “NY” rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
In a June 29 opinion, the Court of International Trade ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over one of 12 entries of plywood from China in a customs case since the importer only protested its first liquidation, but did not protest a second reliquidation. The lawsuit over the remaining 11 entries that the importer fully protested continues. The importer, Bral Corporation, says the imported plywood was defective and should therefore be reassessed duties at 18% of its original value.
The Court of International Trade erred in rejecting aluminum extrusion manufacturer Kingtom Aluminio's bid to intervene in a case challenging the determination of duty evasion in which Kingtom was the company alleged to be aiding in the evasion, Kingtom said in a June 25 brief requesting the court's reconsideration. Kingtom says that the court overlooked Kingtom's interest in the case and failed to consider that Kingtom shares a legal claim with the plaintiff (Global Aluminum Distributor LLC v. U.S., CIT #21-00198).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP “NY” rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
A customs case in the Court of International Trade has been stayed for a three-month period pending a related CBP decision, according to a June 25 order granting the consent motion to stay. In settlement discussions in the case, questions have arisen over a novel question on the application of the USMCA to natural gas imports, and the delay will allow "plaintiff to seek an administrative ruling" from CBP on the issue. Resolution in the customs case, brought by Emera Energy Services, may come following the CBP proceeding, the company's motion to stay said. Emera's case concerns CBP's denial of the exemption from merchandise processing fees for Canadian-origin goods according to the terms of NAFTA, the 2018 initial complaint said (Emera Energy Services, Inc. v. United States, CIT #18-00074).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP “NY” rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The following are short summaries of recent CBP “NY” rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
A customs case from importer Strategic Import Supply should not be reconsidered in light of new evidence since it is merely an attempt by the plaintiff to "relitigate arguments already raised," the Department of Justice said in a June 23 response to SIS's motion to reconsider the case. The plaintiff failed to satisfy the high burden for reconsideration, DOJ said in the Court of International Trade, and also is not entitled to amend its complaint to change the jurisdictional grounds of its claim (Acquisition 362, LLC v. United States, CIT #20-03762).
The Court of Justice of the European Union found that Venezuela has standing to challenge restrictions made on it by the Council of the EU, according to a June 22 judgment. The CJEU, which overturned a General Court of the European Union ruling that came to the opposite conclusion, said Venezuela can challenge the financial sanctions in European court because the measures are liable to harm Venezuela's economic interests. The General Court originally found that Venezuela had no standing to bring a complaint because it is not an EU member state and had not shown it was directly affected by the sanctions.