The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. filed a motion for default judgment on Aug. 7 against importer E-Dong, U.S.A. in pursuit of $234,748.30 in lost revenue due to the importer's negligent failure to pay a federal excise tax on its "Korean distilled beverage soju." The government said E-Dong lied on customs forms by misclassifying the distilled liquor as rice wine, adding that these misstatements "constitute negligent violations for failure to exercise reasonable care and competence" (United States v. E-Dong, U.S.A., CIT # 24-00066).
The U.S. agreed to liquidate importer SW Technologies' nitrile rubber globes under the importer's preferred Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading -- a move which will see CBP refund SW Technologies ordinary customs duties and Section 301 tariffs. The goods were initially imported under HTS subheading 4015.19.1010, which covers non-medical gloves at a 3% duty rate. SW Technologies argued at the Court of International Trade that the gloves should have been classified under the duty-free subheading 4015.19.0550 as medical gloves. Per a stipulated judgment at CIT, the U.S. will liquidate the importer's entries under its preferred subheading and secondary subheading 9903.88.39, which exempts the goods from Section 301 duties (SW Technologies v. U.S., CIT # 23-00119).
Importer InterGlobal Forest alleged at least eight errors in the Court of International Trade's July ruling upholding a Commerce Department finding that three plywood importers evaded antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on plywood from China (see 2507100044), and it asked for an adverse inference against the government for “suppressing evidence in flagrant violation” of an earlier remand order (American Pacific Plywood v. United States, CIT Consol. # 20-03914).
Domestic petitioner Mosaic Company pushed back against the Commerce Department’s redetermination on remand -- made under protest -- that a Moroccan government program wasn’t specific to fertilizer exporter OCP (see 2507010039), saying the department’s original, contrary finding was reasonable and supported by record evidence (The Mosaic Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00246).
The government will appeal an August Court of International Trade decision finding that its claim for unpaid duties against a surety company on an entry liquidated in 2009 violates both the statute of limitations for seeking payment and an implied requirement in the bond that demand for payment be made in a reasonable time (U.S. v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 22-00327).
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Aug. 7 largely kept alive a case from importer Eteros Technologies USA and its CEO Aaron McKellar against CBP for allegedly retaliating against the company for winning a customs case at the Court of International Trade. Judge Kymberly Evanson said the court has jurisdiction to review the revocation of McKellar's NEXUS membership, which lets pre-screened travelers accelerate their entrance into the U.S., and that the case isn't mooted by CBP's vacatur of an order banning McKellar from entering the U.S. for five years (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, W.D. Wash. # 2:25-00181).
The Commerce Department illegally found that the South Korean government's provision of electricity is de facto specific, the Court of International Trade held on Aug. 8. Judge Jane Restani likened electricity provision to other "generally available and widely used" subsidies, such as "roads, bridges, schools, highways," that the agency is barred from countervailing under the CVD statute.
The Court of International Trade's Pay.gov system will undergo maintenance Aug. 9 from 6 p.m. to 12 a.m. ET, the court announced. Documents requiring payment with this system can't be filed on CM/ECF during this time.
Importer Lanxess Corp. on Aug. 5 told the Court of International Trade that its organometallic product, made from methylaluminoxane (MAO) and trimethylaluminum in a toluene solvent, is properly classified as a "supported catalyst" and not as a solution under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 3208. The company said its customers exclusively use the product as a supported catalyst and those in the industry only refer to the product as such (Lanxess Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 23-00073).