Court of International Trade Judge M. Miller Baker partly remanded and partly sustained Dec. 5 the Commerce Department’s countervailing duty investigation on wind towers from Malaysia, saying Commerce failed to answer the “basic” question of how it now calculates the denominator in an entered value adjustment decision and didn’t address concerns about the use of land prices from one Malaysian state as a benchmark for another's.
Plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation "have every intention" to appeal their case challenging the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China to the Supreme Court, Matt Nicely, lead counsel for the companies, told the Court of International Trade during a Nov. 4 status conference.
The Court of International Trade's Pay.gov system will undergo maintenance on Dec. 13, 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET, the court said. Documents requiring payment on Pay.gov can't be filed on CM/ECF during this time.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Petitioner Brooklyn Bedding's argument against two issues in a case on the antidumping duty investigation on Indonesian mattresses amount to "mere disagreement" with the Commerce Department's decisions, "falling far short of the required showing," the U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 3 reply brief (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1674).
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 5 partly remanded and partly sustained a Commerce Department countervailing duty investigation of Malaysian wind towers. It sustained the use of a Singaporean Tier III electricity benchmark, but remanded to have Commerce explain how it now calculates entered value adjustments and address exporter CS Wind’s concern about Malaysian land benchmarks.
The Court of International Trade erred in ruling that importer Blue Sky The Color of Imagination's planning calendars are diaries under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4820.10.2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Dec. 4. Judges Alan Lourie, William Bryson and Raymond Chen said the trade court violated the principle of stare decisis by skirting the CAFC's prior interpretation of the term "diary."
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. filed a reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss a case from importer Eteros Technologies and three of its executives alleging retaliation against the parties for winning a customs case at the Court of International Trade. The government told the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington the plaintiffs "continue to conflate customs and immigration law" and failed to "plead sufficient facts to state a plausible claim" (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, W.D. Wash. # 2:25-00181).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Dec. 4 that the Court of International Trade erred in ruling that importer Blue Sky the Color of Imagination's planning calendars are classified as diaries under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4820.10.20.10. Judges Alan Lourie, William Bryson and Raymond Chen said the trade court violated the principle of stare decisis by going against the CAFC's 2002 ruling in Mead Corp. v. U.S., which interpreted the term "diary" as referring to "retrospective, not prospective" records. However, the Federal Circuit didn't settle on a final subheading for the products at issue, though it noted that the U.S. offered "some seemingly persuasive arguments" for why Blue Sky's goods fall under heading 4820 rather than under heading 4910 as calendars.