Importer Atlas Power opposed the government's motion to withdraw one of its admissions of fact in a customs case on the assessment of Section 301 tariffs on graphics processing units. The U.S. moved the Court of International Trade to withdraw its admission that the subject merchandise is made "of parts of or accessories to ADP machines classified under subheading 8473.30.1180 of the HTSUS." Atlas said that its goods entered under subheading 8473.30.1180 and CBP didn't "object to the classification during the administrative proceedings leading to this litigation" (Atlas Power v. United States, CIT # 23-00084).
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 wrongly countervailed benefits received by a Turkish rebar exporter under a law the department hadn’t known existed until the exporter noted it in a filing -- while rejecting that filing, said exporter claimed in a June 27 complaint (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #24-00096).
Refraining from joining exporters’ June 13 submission to the Court of International Trade (see 2406140059), a plaintiff-intervenor importer filed its own motion for judgment making similar arguments against Commerce’s finding that Thai solar panel exporters had circumvented an antidumping duty order on solar panels from China (Canadian Solar International Limited v. U.S., CIT # 23-00222).
The U.S. on July 1 urged the Court of International Trade to dismiss customs broker Seko Customs Brokerage's suit contesting CBP's suspension of the company from participation in the Entry Type 86 pilot and Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program. The government said Seko's claims aren't ripe for judicial review, are moot and are premature (Seko Customs Brokerage v. U.S., CIT # 24-00097).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. moved to resolve a customs case brought by gunmaker Glock in favor of the company, offering to pay the importer refunds for royalty payments on its lone entry of pistol parts. The government said it wasn't "conceding or admitting to any factual or legal issues," but it would pay the refund "given the amount in controversy." Later cases on the valuation of the pistol parts will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, the brief said. The refund is less than $50 (Glock v. U.S., CIT # 23-00046).
The Commerce Department interpreted the scope of the antidumping duty order on cased pencils from China in a way that is "contrary to the plain language of its terms," importer School Specialty told the Court of International Trade in a June 28 complaint. The importer said the agency also misapplied the "substantial transformation test" in its scope ruling (School Specialty v. U.S., CIT # 24-00098).
In Court of International Trade oral arguments June 25, a judge questioned both parties as to the reason that the Commerce Department made an allegedly ex parte visit to a domestic competitor while it was in the process of reaching a scope ruling on an importer’s ceramic tile (see 2402010046) (Elysium Tiles v. U.S., CIT # 23-00041).
The Supreme Court of the U.S. on June 28 overturned a hallmark of administrative law that had stood for four decades: the court's principle of deferring to federal agencies' interpretation of ambiguous statutes established in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade: