Plexus Corp., the plaintiff in a customs classification case over printed circuit board assemblies used in audio-visual transmission equipment, wants proceedings stayed pending the Department of Justice's consideration of its settlement offer. According to the June 30 motion to stay in the Court of International Trade, Plexus said that a stay would help avoid "incurring unnecessary significant additional expenses" should the settlement offer be accepted (Plexus Corp. v. United States, CIT #13-00343).
toarticlessource documents
Search Primer
Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.
Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "surrogate value").
Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead. (e.g., CIT).
Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., CBP +ruling).
Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., ruling -NY).
Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls") or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").
The Commerce Department's decision to swap the basis for its total adverse facts available determination in an antidumping administrative review is backed by substantial evidence and in line with Court of International Trade remand orders, the Department of Justice said in June 30 comments on the remand results. After Judge M. Miller Baker found that Commerce improperly relied on two issues with plaintiff Hung Vuong Group's data submitted to the agency to determine AFA, Commerce flipped to two other elements of HVG's data to make the same determination (Hung Vuong Corporation, et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00055).
The Court of International Trade ruled June 29 it doesn't have jurisdiction over one of 12 entries of plywood from China in a customs case because the plaintiff didn't protest that entry's reliquidation. The lawsuit will continue over the remaining 11 entries.
The Department of Justice said in June 30 oral argument before the Court of International Trade that its positions on the proper jurisdiction for cases challenging either the exclusion or seizure of goods identified as drug paraphernalia are consistent in district courts and CIT. If an import is excluded from entry by CBP, CIT has jurisdiction. If the good is seized, the district court has jurisdiction, it said. DOJ argues that CIT doesn't have jurisdiction to hear a case brought by Root Sciences since CBP seized a cannabis crude extract recovery machine from the importer rather than excluding it (Root Sciences, LLC v. United States, CIT # 21-00123).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Hilti, Inc., with consent from the Department of Justice, moved for the Court of International Trade to stop liquidation of its steel nail entries pending a result in its challenge of the expansion of Section 232 tariffs onto steel “derivatives,” in a June 29 filing. The importer wants the court to bar CBP from liquidating its steel nails entries subject to the 25% steel derivatives tariffs for entries made after 12:01 am Feb. 8, 2020. Hilti conferred with Ann Motto of DOJ, who consented to the suspension of liquidation, without addressing the likelihood of success in the case, the company said (Hilti, Inc., v. U.S. et al., CIT # 21-00216).
The Department of Justice invoked a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion in an antidumping case involving a country-wide rate for a non-market economy, according to a June 28 notice of supplemental authority in the Court of International Trade. In the case, the China Manufacturers Alliance and Shanghai Huayi Group Corporation said that Commerce determined a country-wide antidumping rate without providing the legal basis for doing so in an antidumping investigation of truck and bus tires from China (Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd. et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00031). But in China Manufacturers Alliance, LLC v. United States, decided on June 10, the Federal Circuit said that Commerce can assign a China-wide rate “by the very means in which Commerce did in this investigation,” DOJ said. The decision showed that Commerce's China-wide rate is an individually investigated rate (see 2106100044).
The petitioner in an antidumping case, Catfish Farmers of America, is incorrect in its assessment that the Commerce Department erred by departing from the "expected method" for calculating the antidumping duty rate for non-individually reviewed "separate rate" respondents in an administrative review on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam, the Department of Justice said. Responding to the petitioner in June 28 comments on the second remand results at the Court of International Trade, DOJ, along with comments from the plaintiffs led by GODACO Seafood Joint Stock Company, said Commerce properly adhered to court orders by setting a lower rate for the exporters (GODACO Seafood Joint Stock Company, et al., v. United States, CIT #21-00063).
OtterBox can't get refunds on a prior disclosure it made on imports of smartphone covers, even though it prevailed in a Court of International Trade case on entries of the same product, the Department of Justice said in a June 25 reply brief to OtterBox's motion to enforce the court's judgment. DOJ said CIT does not have jurisdiction over the prior disclosure in dispute, making OtterBox's bid an attempt to get a refund to which it is not entitled (Otter Products, LLC v. United States, CIT #13-00269).
In a June 29 opinion, the Court of International Trade ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over one of 12 entries of plywood from China in a customs case since the importer only protested its first liquidation, but did not protest a second reliquidation. The lawsuit over the remaining 11 entries that the importer fully protested continues. The importer, Bral Corporation, says the imported plywood was defective and should therefore be reassessed duties at 18% of its original value.