The Court of International Trade will be closed on Dec. 24 by order of Chief Judge Mark Barnett, the court announced.
Court of International Trade
The United States Court of International Trade is a federal court which has national jurisdiction over civil actions regarding the customs and international trade laws of the United States. The Court was established under Article III of the Constitution by the Customs Courts Act of 1980. The Court consists of nine judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and is located in New York City. The Court has jurisdiction throughout the United States and has exclusive jurisdictional authority to decide civil action pertaining to international trade against the United States or entities representing the United States.
Importer Seneca Foods Corp. will appeal a Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's rejection of eight Section 232 steel tariff exclusion requests, the company said in a notice of appeal (see 2410240029). In the decision, the trade court found that the rejections were backed by substantial evidence and in line with agency practice. The court also sustained Commerce's focus on "prospective evidence of steel production" and rejected Seneca's claim that Commerce's approach gives "short shrift to course-of-dealing evidence" that suggests that an objecting U.S. company won't actually deliver the goods (Seneca Foods Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00243).
Importer Ideavillage Products Corp. on Dec. 19 voluntarily dismissed at the Court of International Trade its customs suit regarding the tariff classification of its shavers and replacement cutting heads. The company challenged CBP's classification of the goods under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8510.30.0000, dutiable at 4.2%, claiming they should be classified under subheading 8510.10.0000, free of duty. Counsel for Ideavillage declined to comment (Ideavillage Products Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00332).
The Commerce Department improperly found that exporter Balkrishna Industries didn't benefit from the Advanced Authorization Scheme in India as part of the 2022 review of the countervailing duty order on new pneumatic off-the-road tires from India, petitioner Titan Tire Corp. argued. Filing a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 20, Titan Tire said Commerce erred in accepting a "post hoc and incomplete examination" of the program performed by the Indian government (Titan Tire Corp. v. United States, CIT # 24-00207).
Domestic producers do have standing to bring their case challenging emergency duty relief granted to solar cell importers to the trade court, those producers, led by Auxin Solar, said Dec. 19 (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 19 denied importer Lionshead Specialty Tire and Wheel's bid to amend a preliminary injunction in an antidumping duty and countervailing duty evasion case to not enjoin the liquidation of steel trailer wheels that the Commerce Department has found to fall outside the scope of the relevant AD/CVD orders. Judge Gary Katzmann held that Lionshead failed to "demonstrate changed circumstances that warrant the modification of the preliminary injunction."
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 20 sustained the Commerce Department's use of surrogate financial statements from Emirates Sleep Systems Private Limited in the antidumping duty investigation on mattresses from Vietnam, despite various objections from exporters led by Ashley Furniture Industries. Judge Timothy Reif said Commerce reasonably found the statements to be complete, publicly available and the best information available.
U.S. solar cell maker Auxin Solar and solar module designer Concept Clean Energy asked the Court of International Trade for another 3,500 words to reply to arguments from the government and solar cell exporters and importers in the pair's suit on the Commerce Department's duty pause on solar cells and modules from four Southeast Asian countries. Auxin and Concept Clean Energy said opposing counsel either consented or took no position to the motion (Auxin Solar v. U.S., CIT # 23-00274).
In response to importer Mitsubishi Power Americas’ motion for judgment, the U.S. filed a cross-motion for judgment saying the importers’ products are filters and don’t fall under the “basket provision” for other catalytic reactors (Mitsubishi Power Americas v. U.S., CIT #21-00573).
The Commerce Department appropriately found that details about U.S. seafood seller Luscious Seafood's wholesaling operations don't support the company's claim that it was a bona fide wholesaler of the domestic like product, the U.S. argued in a reply brief filed last week at the Court of International Trade. The government said that, as a result, Commerce permissibly found Luscious' request for an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam to be invalid (Luscious Seafood v. United States, CIT # 24-00069).