The Court of International Trade on May 23 entered a default judgment against importer Rayson Global and its owner Doris Cheng due to their failure to file an answer to the government's complaint accusing them of avoiding antidumping and Section 301 duties on uncovered mattress innersprings from China (United States v. Rayson Global, CIT # 23-00201).
The Court of International Trade was wrong to rule that imported calendar planners should be classified by CBP as diaries instead of calendars, the importer said in its opening brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 24 (Blue Sky The Color of Imagination v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1710).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated May 24 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):
In a 2022 case brought against both CBP and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, plaintiff Curia Global Inc., a drug development company, once again amended its complaint to remove one of its family companies, Curia Wisconsin, because “the entity is in the process of changing ownership and no longer wishes to join in this action" (Curia Global Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00247).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. on May 13 moved to dismiss a lawsuit challenging CBP's exclusion of two rubber tire entries, claiming that CIT has no jurisdiction because the entries were excluded at the behest of the Transportation Department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As a result, the exclusions were not protestable decisions made by CBP, so the Court of International Trade had no subject matter jurisdiction under Section 1581(a) (Inspired Ventures v. United States, CIT # 24-00062).
The Court of International Trade ruled May 9 that an importer would recoup 22.4% of Section 301 duties it paid on an entry of kids’ erasable e-writing tablets from China.
The Court of International Trade on May 6 granted importer van Gelder's motion to set aside the dismissal of its customs lawsuit, which occurred due to a calendaring mistake from the company's counsel. Judge M. Miler Baker reopened the case and reset the deadline to remove the case from the Customs Case Management Calendar to April 30, 2025 (van Gelder v. United States, CIT # 21-00160).
The Court of International Trade in a decision made public May 9 sustained parts and remanded parts of the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. Judge Claire Kelly remanded the Commerce Department's decisions regarding its "solar glass and air freight valuations and its "methodology for calculating" adverse facts available. The judge sustained exporter Trina Solar's separate rate status; valuation of electricity, ocean freight, backsheet and ethylene vinyl acetate for the plaintiffs, led by Jinko Solar Import and Export Co.; use of JA Solar Malaysia's financial statements to set surrogate financial ratios; deduction of Section 301 duties from U.S. price; and use of AFA against the plaintiffs.
In a May 9 ruling, Court of International Trade Judge Claire Kelly held that importer Kent Displays’ children’s e-writing tablets from China were finished electronic goods under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8543, as the government argued, not duty-free LCD screens under heading 9301, as the importer claimed. The holding mooted the dispute about whether Kent’s entry was exempt from Section 301 duties, as at the time the goods were imported, the tariff doesn't cover the relevant tariff subheading. Instead, the importer will owe a 2.6% duty (Kent Displays v. U.S., CIT # 20-00156).