The U.S. asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to stay two appeals on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in light of the government's petition for writ of certiorari before the Supreme Court in a separate case on the tariffs. The U.S. said "it would be a waste of judicial resources for this Court to hear and decide this case before the Supreme Court has resolved the proceedings before it," in light of the "rapid schedule" proposed before the high court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's recent "unanimous ruling on jurisdiction."
The Court of International Trade ruled Aug. 13, in a decision made public Sept. 5, that exporter BASF Corp.’s food additive Betatene was properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 2106 as a dietary supplement.
The Commerce Department lacked authority under its regulations to rescind the administrative reviews of two Chinese wood moulding exporters "solely due to a lack of suspended entries," the Court of International Trade held on Sept. 5. Judge Jane Restani said Commerce's regulation, 19 C.F.R. Section 351.213(d)(3), only allows for rescission if there were no entries of the subject merchandise, adding that the regulation doesn't "include or imply a requirement that these entries be suspended."
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 8 dismissed exporter Pipe & Piling's case against the 2022-23 review of the antidumping duty order on large-diameter welded pipe from Canada for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge Jane Restani held that Pipe & Piling didn't follow the procedures under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, codified in 19 U.S.C. Section 1516a(g)(3)(B), by failing to notify other interested parties of its intent to seek judicial review. Restani said this requirement is jurisdictional based on the "text and structure" and "operation and context" of the statute.
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 3 dropped two cases on the applicability of Section 301 exclusions from its customs case management calendar for lack of prosecution. Both cases were placed on the calendar and not removed from it at the expiration of the "applicable period of time of removal." One case, brought by Warby Parker, was brought to contest CBP's denial of its protest over whether Section 301 duties apply to its frames and lenses classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9004.90.0000 and secondary subheading 9903.88.15 (see 2303070024). The other case, filed by MTD Products, was filed to contest CBP's denial of its protest claiming its gasoline engines of HTS subheading 8407.90.1020, free of duty, and secondary subheading 9903.88.02, should be exempt from Section 301 duties under secondary subheading 9903.88.12 (see 2309130063) (Warby Parker v. U.S., CIT # 23-00042) (MTD Products v. U.S., CIT # 23-00184).
Customs broker applicant Brandon Chen, who challenged a number of CBP’s 2022 licensing exam questions at the trade court seeking credit for at least one more, succeeded Sept. 4. He will receive a passing score on the test (Brandon Chen v. United States, CIT # 24-00208).
The Commerce Department appropriately resorted to total adverse facts available against countervailing duty respondent Pastificio Gentile in the 2021 CVD review of Italian pasta, for failing to report all its affiliated companies, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public Sept. 3. However, Judge Mark Barnett remanded the review for Commerce to explain the legal basis under which the agency decided to countervail programs it verified were unused during the period of review as part of the AFA treatment.
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 5 said the Commerce Department unlawfully rescinded the antidumping and countervailing duty reviews on wood molding and millwork products from China for exporters China Cornici and RaoPing HongRong Handicrafts. Judge Jane Restani said the agency can't rescind AD/CVD reviews "solely due to a lack of suspended entries" under its regulations. While China Cornici and RaoPing initially mislabeled their entries, the record shows the companies took steps to pay the required duties. Commerce can't just rely on "mislabeled paperwork" in rescinding AD/CVD reviews for exporters and must consider other "important" information, such as prior disclosures and deposits of duties, the court said.
In a decision made public Sep. 5, Court of International Trade Judge Lisa Wang determined that exporter BASF Corp.’s product, Betatene, had been properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 2106 as a "dietary supplement," dismissing the exporter’s claim it should have fallen under heading 2936 as a general-use “provitamin.” She said the product isn’t suited for general use.
The U.S. and importer Crown Cork & Seal settled a customs penalty case against the importer, filing a stipulated judgment at the Court of International Trade on Sept. 2. The U.S. filed the suit alleging that Crown Cork & Seal misclassified its metal can lid imports, valued at around $51 million, underpaying around $1.3 million in duties between 2004 and 2009. The trade court previously denied Crown Cork's bid to dismiss fraud and gross negligence claims in the case (see 2302280053), and the case unsuccessfully went through court-led mediation (see 2305300066). The terms of the settlement are unknown (U.S. v. Crown Cork & Seal USA, CIT # 21-00361).