Foreign-trade zone goods become "importations" for duty drawback purposes when they are entered for consumption into the U.S. and not when they are admitted into an FTZ, importer King Maker Marketing told the Court of International Trade. Responding to the government's motion to dismiss the company's suit challenging the rejection of its duty drawback claims, King Maker said goods in an FTZ are considered to be outside the customs territory of the U.S., making the "date of importation" the date the goods were withdrawn from the FTZ (King Maker Marketing v. United States, CIT # 24-00134).
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 2 remanded the Commerce Department's finding in a covered merchandise referral excluding from the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China certain carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings made using fittings from China that underwent subsequent production in Vietnam. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves sent back Commerce's consideration of various (k)(1) sources, including the petition, declarations from domestic industry executives and a prior circumvention in which Commerce came to a contrary conclusion.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department erred in finding that respondents Heze Huayi Chemical Co. and Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co. cooperated to the best of their ability despite a failure to produce land-use purchase contracts in the 2021 review of the countervailing duty order on chlorinated isocyanurates from China, petitioners led by Bio-Lab argued (Bio-Lab v. U.S., CIT # 24-00118).
The Commerce Department unlawfully expanded the scope of the antidumping duty order on prestressed concrete steel wire strand from Mexico when it found that Mexican exporter Deacero circumvented the order, the company argued in a Dec. 27 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Deacero said Commerce erred in failing to address the company's claims that the agency and the International Trade Commission originally meant to exclude high-carbon steel wire from the scope of the order (Deacero v. U.S., CIT # 24-00212).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Ildico will appeal a Court of International Trade decision finding for the government in a customs classification spat on the company's watches with case backs set with watch glass made of nonprecious materials (see 2411010048). The trade court said Ildico's Richard Mille watches aren't considered to have cases made "wholly" of precious metal and thus fit under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9102, a basket provision covering watches with composite cases. Ildico claimed its watches should have been classified under heading 9101 (Ildico Inc. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 18-00136).
The U.S. agreed to liquidate plastic lids for vacuum-sealed drinkware imported by Yeti Coolers without Section 301 duties, the parties said in a stipulated judgment at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 26. The goods were imported under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 3923.50.0000, dutiable at 5.3%, and secondary subheading 9903.88.03, which was subject to either a 10% or 25% Section 301 duty. After Yeti brought suit to challenge this classification, the government agreed to classify the goods under subheading 9617.00.6000, which covers parts of vacuum flasks and is dutiable at 7.2% but without Section 301 duties (Yeti Coolers v. U.S., CIT # 21-00526).
Importer Trimil voluntarily dismissed 17 customs cases at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 27. The company brought the cases to challenge CBP's decision to appraise its apparel imports at the prices paid with royalties included (see 2112150046). Counsel for the importer said the cases were settled with CBP (Trimil v. U.S., CIT #s 05-00443, 05-00677, 06-00145, 06-00295, 07-00004, 07-00235, 07-00416, 08-00110, 08-00309, 09-00117, 09-00328, 09-00539, 10-00202, 10-00378, 11-00155, 11-00418, 12-00383).
Exporters led by Bio-Lab argued that the statute concerning surrogate value selection requires the Commerce Department to balance the importance of both economic and merchandise comparability rather than elevating one factor over the other. Filing a reply brief earlier this month at the Court of International Trade, Bio-Lab said that the court should find this to be the "best" reading of the statute, 19 U.S.C. 1677b(c), under the standard of review for ambiguous statutes established by the Supreme Court in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (Bio-Lab v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 24-00024).