CBP violated Phoenix Metal Co.'s due process rights by not giving it notice and a chance to comment on interim measures imposed in an Enforce and Protect Act case on the company's cast iron soil pipe imports, the company said March 15 (Phoenix Metal Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00048).
The U.S. told the Court of International Trade in a March 15 reply brief that importer Katana Racing has failed to submit any evidence that would be admissible at trial to rebut the govenrment's claims in a customs penalty suit. The U.S. said Katana only pointed to "hearsay" in addressing the government's arguments that the company was the importer of record for the 386 entries at issue and that the importer negligently entered the goods via "material and false statement" (United States v. Katana Racing, CIT # 19-00125).
The Court of International Trade on March 18 said the U.S. government's eight-year delay in demanding surety company Aegis Security Insurance Co. pay a customs bond for Chinese garlic entries was "unreasonable and a breach of contract." Judge Stephen Vaden said that while the six-year statute of limitations runs from the date CBP issues a bill and not the liquidation date, the eight-year delay in issuing the bill violated the "reasonable time requirement," which is an implied contractual term. Vaden also held that Aegis' "impairment of suretyship" defense failed since the surety could have made a claim with its insurer.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade on March 14 gave parties in a customs case filed by importer BASF Corp. an extra two weeks to file dispositive motions. BASF filed a consent motion on March 13 after fact and expert discovery wrapped up to give the parties more time to prepare a "statement of undisputed material facts." BASF added that its counsel has other cases before the court and federal agencies, requiring the extension (BASF Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 13-00318).
The U.S. on March 13 responded to a petitioner’s remand redetermination comments after that petitioner directly told Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Stanceu he had been “misled” to issue an erroneous ruling (The Mosaic Company v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00116).
The Court of International Trade in a confidential March 14 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on granular polytetrafluoroethylene resin from India. In a letter to the parties, Judge M. Miller Baker said he wants to publish a public version of the opinion March 19. U.S. manufacturer Daikin America brought the suit to contest Commerce's decision to accept respondent Gujarat Fluorochemicals' method for reporting its U.S. movement expenses (see 2205120026). Daikin said that Gujarat Fluorochemicals ignored Commerce's instructions to report its sales expenses on a transaction-specific basis, warranting adverse facts available, and that the agency illegally granted a constructed export price offset for the respondent (Daikin America v. U.S., CIT # 22-00122).
The Court of International Trade in a confidential March 14 order remanded the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on oil country tubular goods from Argentina. In a letter to the litigants, Judge Claire Kelly said she wants to issue a public version of the opinion on or just after March 22. Exporters led by Tenaris Bay City brought the suit contesting Commerce's decision to start the investigation as not being backed by enough of the domestic industry (see 2310230051) (Tenaris Bay City v. U.S., CIT # 22-00343).
The U.S. on March 13 opposed importer Unichem Enterprises' motion to expedite its customs case on CBP's exclusion of its entries of 7-keto dehydroepiandrosterone, saying the company "has failed to establish good cause for expediting this action" (Unichem Enterprises v. U.S., CIT # 24-00033).
The Court of International Trade will ask parties in an oral argument in Section 1581(i) action set for March 20 if antidumping and countervailing duties can ever violate the 8th Amendment as an excessive fine if they are legally calculated. Issuing questions ahead of the argument, Judge Mark Barnett also asked about when exactly importer Greentech Energy Solutions was injured when its solar cell entries were assessed AD/CVD (Greentech Energy Solutions v. United States, CIT # 23-00118).