The U.S. on July 22 moved the Court of International Trade to dismiss Byungmin Chae's challenge to CBP's rejection of his appeal of a question on the April 2018 customs broker license exam. The Nebraska resident, who ultimately fell one question shy of a passing score, previously challenged his results on the exam, including to the U.S. Supreme Court, which denied rehearing (see 2401230031) (Byungmin Chae v. U.S., CIT # 24-00086).
The Court of International Trade in a confidential July 22 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's decision to continue using adverse facts available against countervailing duty respondent The Ancientree Cabinet Co. related to its alleged receipt of benefits under China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. Judge Richard Eaton said he intends to issue a public version of the decision "in the near future," giving the parties until July 29 to review the opinion for confidential information (Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co. v. U.S., CIT # 20-00110).
U.S. solar cell company Auxin Solar and solar module designer Concept Clean Energy argued on July 22 that Section 318(a) of the Trade Act of 1930 didn't permit the Commerce Department to pause antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from four Southeast Asian countries found to be circumventing the AD/CVD orders on these products from China (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).
The Court of International Trade on July 23 dismissed a suit on CBP's liquidation of tire entries from importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The importer entered tires made by exporters Shandong Hengyu Science & Technology Co. and Shandong Wanda Boto Tyre Co., subject to a 64.57% AD rate. In a separate case, the trade court enjoined the liquidation of certain tire entries made by the two exporters but not imports from Acquisition 362 because it wasn't a party to the case. The importer said CBP illicitly failed to enjoin the liquidation of its entries. Judge Mark Barnett said CBP didn't make a "protestable decision" in liquidating Acquisition 362's goods and that the agency didn't have the authority to extend to the importer's entries based on the court's order in the separate case.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 19 that importer Nutricia North America's medical foods should be classified as "food preparations" and not "medicaments" (Nutricia North America v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1436).
In a pair of opinions published July 22, Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif granted motions from defendant-intervenors (see 2305190068) and the International Trade Commission (see 2309010004) to dismiss two cases brought by Turkish steel exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari regarding the same sunset review of an antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Turkey.
The Korean government filed a brief in defense of a South Korean steel exporter and plaintiff July 12, adding its own opinion directly to a case discussing the long-standing controversy surrounding the Commerce Department’s finding of de jure specificity in the Korean steel industry’s use of Korea’s cap-and-trade emissions program (see 2406200062) (POSCO v. U.S., CIT # 24-00006).
Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif released a pair of opinions July 22 dismissing two of a hot-rolled steel flat product exporter's three cases. One, in which Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari sought a sunset review of an AD investigation, was made moot by a subsequent sunset review; the other was incorrectly brought under Section 1581(i) instead of under Section 1581(c), even if that would have required the exporter to file based on “speculation,” the judge said (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT # 22-003549, -50).
Importers Yellow Bird and Vantage Point filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade July 18 arguing that a 1955 Jaguar race car, driven in competitions by multiple Australian racing drivers, is a collector's item, not a used motor vehicle (Yellowbird Enterprises v. U.S., CIT # 24-00121).