Target Corp. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the U.S. failed to distinguish the court's opinion in Cemex v. U.S. from Target's case, in which the retail giant is contesting a court-ordered reliquidation of its entries that erroneously received a favorable antidumping duty rate. Target said that no "amount of legal legerdemain and reference to" distinguishable case law can "mask the vacuity of" the "attempted distinctions" (Target Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2274).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Commerce Department swapped its use of partial adverse facts available for partial neutral facts available for antidumping duty respondent Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. after admitting that it isn't able to determine whether Tainai has "sufficient control over its suppliers to induce their cooperation" (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00038).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Jan. 9-10 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 filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade: