The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department improperly withdrew a questionnaire issued to an antidumping duty and countervailing duty respondent, Repwire and Jin Tiong said in a pair of identical complaints filed Feb. 21 at the Court of International Trade. Commerce's subsequent refusal to accept Jin Tiong's questionnaire responses led the agency to then illegally apply an adverse facts available rate, the companies said (Repwire v. United States, CIT #22-00016) (Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer v. United States, CIT #22-00023).
A Commerce Department scope ruling improperly found two-ply hardwood plywood falls under the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China because the scope language clearly says that subject merchandise consists of a minimum of three plies, said three companies, Vietnam Finewood, Far East American and Liberty Woods, in a Feb. 18 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Vietnam Finewood Company Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #22-00049).
A flexible packaging material imported by Amcor Flexibles Kreuzlingen is classifiable as "other" backed aluminum foil, rather than aluminum foil decorated with a pattern or design, the Court of International Trade said in a Feb. 22 decision. Judge Gary Katzmann said that since the text on the foil is communicative text and not a pattern, Amcor's suggested alternative Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading was the proper one, though he rejected the HTS heading most preferred by Amcor.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Tobacco wraps importer New Image Global argued at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the Court of International Trade should not have allowed the results of a flawed customs test into evidence. The importer is fighting for a lower excise tax on its tobacco wraps, which were classified by the government as roll-your-own tobacco, subjecting them to the excise tax. The wraps are made with ethanol, which "gasses off" when the package is opened and the wrap is exposed to air. New Image has argued that this process will shed between 10% and 13% of the wraps' weight by the time they reach the final consumer and notes that "any lab test that finds that sealed wraps gain weight in storage and transit from the Mexican factory to the United States is inherently unreliable" (New Image Global v. United States, Fed. Cir. #19-2444).
A challenge by mattress importers to the Commerce Department's use of a statistical test in its effort to root out "masked" dumping should be dismissed because the importers suffered no injury, the Department of Justice and antidumping petitioners said in a pair of Feb. 17 reply briefs. The Court of International Trade, DOJ and the petitioners said the test was inconsequential to the antidumping duty matter, making the challenge to it moot (Ashley Furniture Industries v. United States, CIT #21-00283).
The Court of International Trade rejected on Feb. 18 a group of Chinese exporter's arguments that a glass input for aluminum extrusions is not countervailable since it ties in to non-subject merchandise. Since the plaintiffs' arguments are "largely conclusory statements" and not backed by evidence on the record, Judge Leo Gordon said that the Commerce Department properly found that the glass inputs were countervailable.
The Supreme Court should deny a bid to review the president's authority under the Section 232 national security tariff provision, the U.S. said in a Feb. 17 reply brief. Arguing that greater deference and flexibility are accorded the president in a national security context, the Department of Justice told the nation's highest court that the president lawfully adjusted tariff action under Section 232 beyond procedural timelines. The Supreme Court also previously ruled that Section 232 isn't an improper delegation of authority and the petitioners haven't shown this decision to be wrongly decided, the brief said (Transpacific Steel LLC, et al. v. United States, U.S. #21-721).
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 22 ruled that Formpack, a flexible packaging material imported by Amcor Flexibles Kreuzlignen, is classifiable as "other" backed aluminum foil, rather than aluminum foil decorated with a pattern or design. Siding with the plaintiff, Judge Gary Katzmann said that Formpack is classified under the duty free subheading 7607.20.50. CBP originally classified the entries under subheading 7607.20.10, which is dutiable at 3.7% and provides for aluminum foil "covered or decorated with a character, design, fancy effect or pattern." Since the text on Formpack is communicative text not decorative, it doesn't belong under CBP's subheading, Amcor successfully argued.