Court of International Trade activity

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Exporter CVB voluntarily dismissed its appeal on Oct. 29 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury finding on mattresses from various Asian countries (CVB v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1504).

In response to a motion for judgment filed by an importer of Mexican rail couplers, the U.S. and a petitioner each said Oct. 25 that the Commerce Department doesn't have to consider conflict of interest claims in antidumping duty investigations. The importer brought a conflict of interest suit against the petitioner in an AD investigation, saying that the petitioner relied on evidence from an attorney it itself had once hired (see 2407160060) (Amsted Rail Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00242).

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 30 referred a customs penalty suit against importer Katana Racing to mediation under Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves. The judge overseeing the case, Lisa Wang, said the mediation period will expire March 17 unless Choe-Groves recommends an extension (U.S. v. Katana Racing, CIT # 19-00125).

The Commerce Department reasonably interpreted the Trade Act of 1930 to pause antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from four Southeast Asian countries, the government told the Court of International Trade on Oct. 29. Responding to U.S. solar cell maker Auxin Solar and solar module designer Concept Clean Energy, the U.S. said the two companies' arguments belie "Congress' broad delegation of rulemaking authority" to respond to an emergency found by the president (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).

The Transportation Department doesn't have "vested authority" to determine whether to admit entries of goods based on whether they comport with federal safety standards, the Court of International Trade held on Oct. 30. Judge Lisa Wang said that, as a result, CBP has the relevant admissibility authority and the trade court can hear the case.

Importer Portmeirion Group USA dropped its customs case at the Court of International Trade on Oct. 28, filing a notice of dismissal. The company brought the suit in 2021 to reclassify its ceramic tableware and kitchenware imports under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6911.10.3850, dutiable at 6%, or subheading 6912.00.3950, dutiable at 4.5%. Counsel for the importer declined to comment (Portmeirion Group USA v. United States, CIT # 21-00179).

Two more complaints from Chinese high protein content pea protein exporters (see 2410230049) and an importer hit the Court of International Trade on Oct. 25, this time challenging the International Trade Commission’s final affirmative critical circumstances determination regarding pea protein from China (NURA USA v. U.S., CIT # 24-00182; Jianyuan International v. U.S., CIT # 24-00184).

The United States sought to recover more than $22 million from an importer who it said fraudulently dodged antidumping duties on wooden bedroom furniture from China (U.S. v. Lawrence Bivona, CIT # 24-00196).

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 28 denied importer Retractable Technologies' motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the collection of certain Section 301 tariffs, though the court granted the company's motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining liquidation of its entries during the course of litigation. Judge Claire Kelly issued the confidential decision, giving the parties until Nov. 1 to review any confidential information in the opinion (Retractable Technologies v. U.S., CIT # 24-00185).