The Court of International Trade erred in classifying Target General Merchandise's string light models under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9405 as lamps not specified elsewhere in the tariff schedule rather than as electric lamps under either heading 8543 or 8539, Target argued in its opening brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Target General Merchandise v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 26-1037).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Commerce Department applied its new "price difference test" in lieu of the Cohen's d test to detect "masked" dumping in an antidumping duty review on remand at the Court of International Trade (Universal Tube and Plastic Industries v. United States, CIT # 23-00113).
The Commerce Department confirmed its decision to impose a 160% countervailing duty rate for exporter Tau-Ken Temir in the countervailing duty investigation on silicon metal from Kazakhstan despite a remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Tau-Ken Temir v. United States, CIT # 21-00173).
The Court of International Trade erred when it failed to find that importer BASF's food additive betatene is classified as a natural or synthetically reproduced provitamin under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 2936, BASF argued in its opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The importer said that it clearly established that its product was "prima facie classifiable under heading 2936, meaning that as a matter of law, classification under heading 2106," as a dietary supplement, "cannot stand" (BASF Corporation v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 26-1056).
In a Jan. 8 notice of supplemental authority, the government said that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision in Mosaic Co. v. United States (see 2512050026) was applicable to a current case challenging the Commerce Department's finding that a Korean electricity program was de facto specific to one of its three largest users (Hyundai Steel v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00190).
The U.S. either "concedes, does not dispute, or misses the point of, [importer Cozy Comfort's] key arguments" in the importer's appeal of the Court of International Trade's decision classifying The Comfy, an oversized pullover, as a pullover and not a blanket, Cozy argued in a Jan. 9 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Cozy Comfort v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1889).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 9 issued mandates in two cases: one from importer Nutricia North America on the classification of its medical food imports (see 2511170047) and the other in a countervailing duty case from exporter Kaptan Demir on the decision not to attribute subsidies provided to Kaptan's input supplier to Kaptan itself (see 2511170018) (Nutricia North America v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1436) (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1431).
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 8 sustained the Commerce Department's overhead ratio calculations following a remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the agency's treatment of energy and manufacturing overhead costs in the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China.
CAFC Hears Oral Argument on Interpretation of Statute Governing Automatic Drawback Claim Liquidation
In oral argument held Jan. 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit indicated that it preferred the government’s stricter interpretation of the statute governing automatic liquidation of drawback claims over an importer’s more expansive one (Performance Additives v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-2059).