The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 3 issued its mandate in a countervailing duty case concerning the Commerce Department's decision to countervail respondent Hyundai Steel's collection of berthing fees from third parties on a port it built for the South Korean government. The court upheld the Court of International Trade's decision sustaining Commerce's decision without an opinion (see 2505120018). At issue was Hyundai's contract with the South Korean government to build the Incheon North Harbor port, ownership of which reverted back to the government after construction was complete but with Hyundai receiving the right to collect fees from third-party users of the port as payment. At oral argument, the CAFC judges pressed Hyundai on whether the issue was settled in the court's 1999 ruling in AK Steel v. U.S., which upheld the decision to countervail exporter POSCO's exemptions from dockyard fees and collection of third-party fees at the Kwangyang Bay Industrial Estate port facility, which it built then transferred ownership of to the Korean government (see 2404080057) (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1100).
The Court of International Trade on July 2 said in a text-only order it will hold oral argument on importer Detroit Axle's challenge of President Donald Trump's decision to eliminate the de minimis threshold for Chinese products via the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. While CIT Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani stayed consideration of the importer's claims against the tariffs on China issued under IEEPA, the judges set a July 10 oral argument date for consideration of the company's motion for a preliminary injunction against the end of the de minimis threshold (Axle of Dearborn, d/b/a Detroit Axle v. Dep't of Commerce, CIT # 25-00091).
The Court of International Trade on July 3 let importer Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations add three documents to the record in a case on the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on truck and bus tires from Thailand. Judge Gary Katzmann said the documents are needed to review whether Commerce improperly declined to add the documents to the record in the AD investigation.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's recent ruling in a trade-related False Claims Act case likely will create more customs fraud enforcement led by private parties and should lead importers to be extra wary that they are complying with U.S. trade laws, various laws firms said. The case is Island Industries v. Sigma Corp. (9th Cir. # 22-55063).
The U.S. sought reconsideration of the Court of International Trade’s May 2 ruling that importer BASF Corp.’s fish oil ethyl ester concentrates are “extracts of fish” under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 1603, not “food preparations” under heading 2106. It said the court “overlooked” Explanatory Note 16.03 for heading 1603 to create an impracticably broad definition of "fish extracts" (BASF Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 13-00318) (see 2506040076).
After the Commerce Department chose on remand to again directly value antidumping duty review mandatory respondent Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies’ energy costs in an AD administrative review, the exporter said June 20 in response that the department just “recycled” its initial results (Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00068).
Importer BASF Corp. pushed back July 2 against a U.S. attempt to seek reconsideration of Court of International Trade Judge Gary Katzmann’s decision that BASF’s fish oil should be classified as fish extracts, not as food preparations (see 2506040076 and 2505020018) (BASF Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 13-00318).
Surety company Aegis Security Insurance moved the Court of International Trade on June 30 to dismiss the government's case looking to collect duties that have gone unpaid on entries of garlic imported in 2002. Aegis said the six-year statute of limitations to file such a claim runs from the date of liquidation of the underlying entries, arguing that two CIT judges have held as much and that the collections statute, 19 U.S.C. Section 1505, compels such a finding (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance, CIT # 25-00051).
The America First Legal Foundation, an advocacy group aligned with President Donald Trump, argued that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia got the question of the Court of International Trade's jurisdiction wrong in a case on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Filing an amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the foundation provided an alternative basis for the appellate court to find that the case belongs at CIT: IEEPA provides for embargoes for reasons other than the "protection of the public health or safety" (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. Cir. # 25-5202).
CBP's decision to substitute the International Labor Organization indicators of forced labor for the "statutory definition of forced labor" is "arbitrary and capricious" and exceeds the agency's statutory authority, exporter Kingtom Aluminio argued. Filing a reply in support of its motion for judgment to the Court of International Trade on June 30, Kingtom argued that while CBP can use the ILO indicators "as part of its framework for determining if forced labor exists," it can't wholesale swap the indicators for the term's statutory definition (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT # 24-00264).