The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 9 upheld the Court of International Trade's classification of 14 types of frozen fruit mixtures under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 0811.90.80, which covers "other" frozen fruit. Judges Todd Hughes, Leonard Stark and Robert Schroeder, sitting by designation from a Texas court, held that nine types of mixtures that contain fruits and vegetables properly fit under heading 0811 pursuant to GRI 3(b), which considers which component of a mixture gives it its "essential character," since the mixtures' fruit gave the product its essential character. The appeals court said subheading 0811.90.80 was proper to cover all 14 mixture types, though it disagreed with the trade court that "other" means "none of the above," writing instead that it means "none of the preceding categories."
The Court of International Trade on May 6 denied a motion to compel discovery of unredacted versions of CBP officials' internal emails from importer Quantified Operations and manufacturer WobbleWorks (HK) in a customs case on the classification of the companies' 3D pens. Judge Richard Eaton said the redacted information isn't relevant to the classification claims and is "protected by the deliberative process privilege" (Quantified Operations v. United States, CIT # 22-00178).
The Commerce Department properly relied on respondent Shakti Forge Industries' reported costs in the antidumping duty investigation on forged steel fittings from India, the Court of International Trade held on May 6. Sustaining the investigation after two remands, Judge Stephen Vaden said Commerce permissibly found Shakti's costs to be accurate after conducting an in-person verification of the respondent's facilities during the second remand period.
Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit pressed both respondent Salzgitter Flachstahl and the U.S. in an antidumping duty case regarding the use of partial adverse facts available against Salzgitter for its failure to provide manufacturer information for around 28,000 of its downstream sales made in Germany by one of its affiliates (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1219).
No national emergency or "unusual and extraordinary threat" exists to justify invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs on all U.S. trading partners, the Liberty Justice Center argued. Filing its reply brief in support of its bid for both a preliminary injunction and summary judgment at the Court of International Trade, the conservative legal advocacy group argued that the trade court can review President Donald Trump's declaration of a national emergency (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00066).
The Court of International Trade on May 8 held that CBP can't unilaterally reliquidate entries erroneously liquidated in violation of a suspension order from the court. Judge Gary Katzmann said CBP can't avoid the court's role in disturbing the finality of liquidation and ordering equitable relief. The judge went on to deny this equitable relief to the government, which inadvertently liquidated 174 entries of solar panels without applicable Section 201 safeguard duties. Katzmann declined to extend such relief to CBP on the basis that the agency inflicted the harm itself and failed to show it was adequately diligent in preventing the error.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department's selection of benchmarks in assessing the provision of phosphate rock mining rights and natural gas for less than adequate remuneration programs weren't supported by substantial evidence, the Court of International Trade held on May 6. Judge Jane Restani held that Commerce improperly excluded sedimentary phosphate rock in constructing the benchmark for the phosphate rock mining rights program and failed to show Kazakh natural gas would be available to Russian purchasers.
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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 5 sharply questioned importer Valeo North America's argument that the Commerce Department improperly included its T-series aluminum sheet in the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet from China. During a May 5 oral argument, Judges Todd Hughes, Richard Taranto and Kara Stoll pressed Valeo on its claim that Commerce distorted the scope language (Valeo North America v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1189).