The government "mostly dodges" the arguments customs broker license exam taker Skeeter-Jo Stoute-Francois makes against four questions on the exam and "baselessly and repeatedly accuses" her of rewriting the challenged questions, counsel for Stoute-Francois argued in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The brief said the U.S. "advances a series of impermissible post hoc justifications, misconstrues the applicable standard of review, fails to address several of Plaintiff’s arguments, and improperly relies" on past CIT cases (Skeeter-Jo Stoute-Francois v. Janet Yellen, CIT # 24-00046).
In its opposition to a reconsideration request in a vehicle sidebar classification case, the U.S. “misleads” the court by claiming that exporter Keystone Automotives was attempting to relitigate its position. Actually, the exporter said, its request is “based on the standard of review of the tariff exclusion” Keystone had relied on in its initial arguments (Keystone Automotive Operations v. U.S., CIT # 21-00215).
Surety firm Aegis Security pushed back again (see 2410220026) on the U.S. lawsuit to recover unpaid duties from 2002. The long delay between liquidation and request for payment -- after CBP “likely lost the entry papers for multiple years” -- meant the U.S. could no longer reasonably expect anything from Aegis, it said (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 22-00327).
CBP reversed its finding that importer Scioto Valley Woodworking didn't evade the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wooden cabinets and vanities from China, on remand at the Court of International Trade, finding that the evidence indicates the importer skirted the orders. CBP said that the contents of a "finished goods warehouse" owned by Alno Industry, Scioto's affiliated Malaysian supplier, and the "extent of operational control exercised by Scioto's and Alno's parent company," Qingdao Haiyan Group Co., prompted the reversal (American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance v. United States, CIT # 23-00140).
The following new lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. and a defendant-intervenor each filed a response Jan. 28 to Chinese steel rack exporter Nanjing Dongsheng Shelf Manufacturing, which is challenging the denial of a separate rate in an antidumping duty review due to a missed deadline. The defending parties said Dongsheng failed to show extraordinary circumstances justified its error (Nanjing Dongsheng Shelf Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00085).
Patent attorney Andrew Dhuey offered to appear as amicus curiae at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to defend Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden's decision rejecting an unopposed motion to redact certain confidential information from the merits decision on an AD/CVD injury determination. Dhuey, who is on the trade court's roster of pro bono counsel, said he would like to be appointed by CAFC to defend Vaden's decision, "arguing on behalf of the public interest in judicial transparency" (CVB, Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1504).
CBP unlawfully abused its authority by engaging in retaliation against employees of importer Eteros Technologies USA after the company succeeded at the Court of International Trade in overturning the agency's detention of its marijuana-related drug paraphernalia, Eteros alleged in a new complaint at the trade court (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, CIT # 25-00036).
Parts of brake discs used in airplanes are "parts of an aircraft" and properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8803, the Court of International Trade held on Jan. 30. Judge Mark Barnett said that since the parts are "used for no other purpose," require "no further processing prior" to their use in a brake disc and have "no other substantial commercial application," they should be classified as aircraft parts.
Petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire voluntarily dismissed its appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of an antidumping duty proceeding in light of the appellate court's decision in a related case rejecting the use of total adverse facts available against exporter Oman Fasteners (see 2501070084). In all, two appeals were filed -- one challenging the Court of International Trade's injunction on the collection of cash deposits at the AFA rate and another on the underlying AD proceeding itself. With the rejection of the AFA rate in the appeal on the injunction, Mid Continent dropped its separate appeal (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1350).