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 Court of International Trade should dismiss a Section 592 penalty case against defendant Zhe "John" Liu since the statute of limitations has run out and the "action is untimely," Liu said in a Dec. 13 motion. The fraud case brought by the U.S. was not brought within five years from the date of the alleged violation because the defendant was not involved in the transaction at issue, as he was neither an owner, officer or director of GL Paper Distribution -- the company that committed the alleged fraud and a co-defendant in the action, the brief said. Liu also argued that the U.S. failed to state a claim against the defendant. As a result, Liu should be severed and dismissed from the case, the brief said (United States v. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT #22-00215).
CBP failed to pay a refund of Section 301 duties to Sonos for imports of wireless speakers and audio components for which exclusions had been granted, the importer argued in a Dec. 9 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Due to this alleged failure, Sonos is seeking over $229,000 in refunds of the Section 301 duties paid (Sonos v. U.S., CIT #22-00337).
The only way importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, could have properly challenged a CBP decision on its entries, according to the Court of International Trade, was to file a "[p]remature, overly broad, or indefinite" protest, SIS argued in a Dec. 6 supplemental brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. But these types of protests "do not constitute a proper basis for invoking CIT jurisdiction," the importer claimed, citing a prior Federal Circuit ruling (Acquisition 362 v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1161).
Importer Meyer Corp. in a Dec. 9 motion asked for a status conference on how to proceed after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded its suit over the use of first sale valuation. Since the U.S. failed to respond to Meyer's attempts at contact over a joint status conference request, the importer unliterally sent in the motion, outlining two possible ways forward in the case: court-annexed mediation and retrial, both of which could help "avoid an unwieldy and unnecessarily complicated proceeding" (Meyer Corp. v. U.S., CIT #13-00154).
The Court of International Trade in a Dec.12 opinion dismissed a suit from importer MS Solar Investments challenging the Commerce Department's liquidation instructions following an antidumping duty review for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said the case is based on an error affecting the final results of the review and not a mistake in the liquidation instructions. This means the case falls under Section 1581(c) and not Section 1581(i) -- the court's "residual" jurisidiction -- as claimed by the plaintiff.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate in a case in which it dismissed a suit seeking to retroactively apply Section 301 tariff exclusions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit said that because a protest was not filed with CBP on the relevant entries, the court did not have jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jursidiction, since jurisdiction would have existed under Section 1581(a) (see 2209060035). The appellants, ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings, then attempted to file for a rehearing, arguing that the issue was not directly delegated to CBP, in violation of the Constitution under the major questions doctrine. This bid was rejected (see 2212020073) (ARP Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2176).
The U.S. asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 7 for leave to file a motion to dismiss in a case on an Enforce and Protect Act evasion finding, given that all the entries at issue have been liquidated. While Royal Brush does not oppose the motion for leave to file the dismiss bid, the appellant did tell the U.S. it will oppose the motion to dismiss itself. Prior to the appeal, the Court of International Trade had ruled CBP violated Royal Brush's due process rights by not providing adequate public summaries of confidential information (Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States, CIT #22-1226).
DOJ asked the Court of International Trade to dismiss a case concerning CBP's errant liquidation of its entries of softwood lumber for lack of jurisdiction, in a Dec. 8 motion. Fraserview failed to file a protest contesting liquidation of its entries within the 180-day window, DOJ said, but the company had an available and adequate remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) if it had filed a protest and challenged its denial (Fraserview Remanufacturing v. U.S., CIT # 22-00244).