The Court of International Trade on April 10 sent back the Commerce Department's scope ruling excluding calcium glycinate from the scope of the antidumping duty orders on glycine from India, Japan and Thailand and the countervailing duty orders on glycine from India and China. Judge Joseph Laroski said Commerce acted "unreasonably" by failing to analyze whether the glycinate is a form of crude or technical glycine, notwithstanding the agency's finding that the glycinate is a precursor of dried crystaline glycine. Laroski also said the agency acted "unreasonably" in failing to consider information in the scope ruling application and an International Trade Commission report undermining its conclusion.
The Court of International Trade on April 8 set aside the dismissal of a customs suit brought by Printing Textiles, doing business as Berger Textiles, which was dropped for lack of prosecution. Judge Mark Barnett re-added the case to the Customs Case Management Calendar after the importer said it overlooked the deadline in the case to remain on the calendar due to a "calendaring mistake." Berger said no material delay stems from this mistake and that the U.S. didn't oppose re-adding the case to the calendar. Berger's case concerns whether coated fabric imports were properly subject to antidumping duties (see 2303150073) (Printing Textiles v. United States, CIT # 23-00062).
Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) filed three reply briefs in a trio of related cases at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, all of which are looking to get the International Trade Commission to account for litigation excluding respondent Colakoglu from the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from Turkey in its assessment of whether the U.S. industry was injured (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, Fed. Cir. #s 24-2242, -2243, -2249).
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 on April 8 rejected Georgia woman Skeeter-Jo Stoute-Francois' challenge to four questions on the October 2021 customs broker license exam. Judge Lisa Wang held that for three of the questions, Stoute-Francois formulated her own "factual scenarios" in arguing that there wasn't enough information to select the correct answer. For the remaining question, Wang said CBP's correct answer choice was backed by substantial evidence.
Counsel for Simplified, a small business that became the first to challenge in court the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, told us that he believes jurisdiction to be proper in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and not the Court of International Trade. Andrew Morris of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, the conservative advocacy group bringing the case, said jurisdiction is not reserved for the trade court, since IEEPA is not a statute that authorizes tariffs.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Importer GoLabs, doing business as GOTRAX, on April 4 dropped its customs suit at the Court of International Trade on the classification of its "hoverboards." The importer filed a complaint in February, alleging that dicycles with electric motors and gyroscopic balancing technology, marketed as hoverboards, are "children's cycles" and not "bicycles" (see 2502140057). The importer said the hoverboards fit under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9503.00.0090 and not subheading 8711.60.0050, which comes with a 25% Section 301 duty under secondary subheading 9903.88.02, as classified by CBP. John Peterson, counsel for GOTRAX, said the case will be refiled in a "week or so" due to a "minor jurisdictional glitch" (GoLabs Inc. v. United States, CIT # 25-00003).
New York resident Shuangyang Li filed a stipulation of dismissal in his case challenging several questions on his customs broker license exam. Li argued that many of the questions were unfairly ambiguous, conflicting or lacking essential information, leading to his failure to pass (see 2411220049). Li received a 73.75% score on the exam, just shy of the 75% passing grade. Li didn't respond to a request for comment on the reason for the dismissal or nature of the stipulation (Shuangyang Li v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CIT # 24-00205).
Responding to a Court of International Trade request to discuss “the statutory scheme of who is eligible to apply for a separate rate,” wood moldings and millwork products exporters China Cornici and RaoPing said applicants shouldn’t need a suspended entry during the relevant review period (China Cornici Co. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #s 23-000216, -00217).