In oral argument March 7, judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and attorneys addressed whether the Commerce Department must, in scope rulings, make an independent determination about whether a product is covered by the plain language of an antidumping or countervailing duty order before moving on to (k)(1) factors (Magnum Magnetics Corp. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1164)..
The Commerce Department again failed to support its inclusion of marble composite tile made by Elysium Tiles within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on ceramic tile from China, the Court of International Trade held on March 11. Judge Jane Restani remanded Commerce's scope ruling for a second time, finding that the agency's focus on the tile's decorative features is irrelevant, and that Commerce engaged in a too-simple discussion on the additional processing the tile went through.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
CBP and importer Motivation Design settled a customs case on pet carriers, with the government agreeing to go with the importer's preferred tariff classification for a lower duty rate. Filing a stipulated judgment at the Court of International Trade, the parties agreed that CBP will classify the pet carriers under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6307.90.98, dutiable at 7%, as "other textile articles," instead of subheading 4202.92.90, dutiable at 17.6%, as a case with outer surface of textile materials. CBP classified the goods under subheading 4202.92.90 at entry (Motivation Design v. United States, CIT # 15-00212).
The U.S. filed a March 7 cross-motion for judgment in a classification dispute brought by mastectomy brassiere importer Amoena USA. It said the products fall under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading for bras, not for accessories to artificial body parts (Amoena USA Corp. v. United States, CIT #20-00100).
The Court of International Trade should not give importer Under the Weather leave to amend its complaint to add a claim in its customs suit on the tariff treatment of its see-through pop-up tent "pods," the U.S. said in a brief filed last week. The government said the proposed amendment to Under the Weather's complaint is "untimely," since it's "now years after" the importer "could have presented its claim to Customs," adding that the claim also fails to state a valid argument (Under the Weather v. United States, CIT # 21-00211).
After two remands, the Court of International Trade sustained March 10 the Commerce Department’s choice of India as a surrogate over Indonesia for an antidumping duty review on Vietnamese-origin frozen fish fillets. The department’s selection was reasonable and adequately explained, it said.
The Court of International Trade on March 11 again sent back the Commerce Department's decision to include marble composite tile made by Elysium Tiles in the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on ceramic tile from China. Judge Jane Restani said "the scope language is not so clear that either party must prevail," finding both that Commerce didn't provide any (k)(1) sources to back its conclusion and that Elysium didn't sufficiently prove its composite tile is excluded from the orders as a ceramic tile.
The Commerce Department properly excluded various mattress models made by exporter PT Ecos Jaya Indonesia from the antidumping duty order on mattresses from Indonesia for being either "multifunctional furniture" or "mattress toppers," the Court of International Trade held on March 7. However, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said five models of PT Ecos' mattresses didn't clearly qualify for the mattress topper exclusion, since the evidence didn't sufficiently establish that they were used on top of mattresses.
Frozen fish fillet petitioner Catfish Farmers of America again argued March 5 the U.S. was wrong to state that it hadn’t sought certain information from a review respondent, and, because of that, a gap in the record was justified (Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, CIT # 24-00082).