CBP will deny liquidation extension requests that are filed "based solely on the pending CIT litigation challenging the lawfulness of the Section 301 duties on Chinese goods under List 3 and/or List 4A," the agency said in CSMS message. CBP will "place protests challenging the lawfulness of the Section 301 duties imposed on Chinese goods under List 3 and/or List 4A in 'Suspended' status under 'Other,' as CBP will not be acting on these protests at this time," it said. "The suspension of protests under the 'Other' category does not in any manner acknowledge the validity of such protests but is merely an administrative convenience for CBP. This guidance regarding liquidation extensions and protest processing does not pertain to entries filed under List 1 (subheading 9903.88.01), List 2 (subheading 9903.88.02), submissions pertaining to exclusion requests pending with the U.S. Trade Representative, or submissions not contesting the validity of List 3 and/or List 4A Section 301 duties on Chinese goods."
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Dec. 1 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
Since a steel importer's and purchaser's bid to reliquidate two entries subject to Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs is virtually identical to its already dismissed action seeking the same thing, it should be dismissed, the Department of Justice argued in a Nov. 24 brief at the Court of International Trade. The new case, brought by the importer, Voestalpine USA, and the purchaser, Bilstein Cold Rolled Steel, which challenges the Commerce Department's Section 232 exclusion, is "legally indistinguishable" from its prior case, and, as such, is moot, the U.S. said (Voestalpine USA Corp., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00290).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade committed a logical error when it dismissed a steel importer's and purchaser's bid to reliquidate two entries subject to Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, the importer and purchaser said in a brief attempting to keep their case alive. Bilstein Cold Rolled Steel, the purchaser, and Voestalpine USA, the importer, moved for a reconsideration of CIT's decision, which held that the plaintiffs had already received the relief available to them from the Commerce Department in the form of a product exclusion but failed to preserve their ability to receive a refund through a protest or an extension of liquidation (Voestalpine USA Corp., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03829).
The Court of International Trade, noting an impasse on a key jurisdictional question in a customs case in a Nov. 22 letter, gave the litigants 30 days to work out a solution on how best to proceed. Acknowledging the legitimacy of both sides' jurisdictional claims, Judge Jane Restani said that if the parties fail to resolve the matter in 30 days, then the plaintiff, FD Sales Company, has 10 days to amend its complaint (FD Sales Company LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00224).
The Court of International Trade should dismiss a challenge of CBP's alleged failure to issue full Section 301 refunds for lack of jurisdiction since the case was untimely filed, the Department of Justice argued in a Nov. 19 brief. Plaintiff FD Sales' rebuttal says that the 180-day deadline to file a case that runs from a protest denial does not apply in this case since CBP did not actually deny the protest, but that the protest can be considered denied in part due to CBP's failure to give the full refund. DOJ countered, in the case's most recent brief, that this argument must be rejected since it is "undisputed" that FD Sales filed its summons more than 180 days after the date of the decision (FD Sales Company LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00224).
The Commerce Department requested a voluntary remand in a Court of International Trade case over steel exporter Mirror Metals' denied Section 232 exclusion requests, finding that it is appropriate to reconsider the exclusion denials. The case concerns 45 exclusion requests for flat-rolled stainless steel products that are supposedly used in large-scale architectural projects. The requests saw objections from three domestic manufacturers, leading to Commerce denying all 45 exclusion bids. The leading reason for the denials given by Commerce was the availability of the domestic capacity to make the products in question (Mirror Metals, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00144).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Nov. 18 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: