Importer Bral failed to clear the three-prong test needed to make a valid claim for an allowance in value for imports of plywood, the U.S. argued in an Oct. 3 reply brief at the Court of International Trade over its cross-motion for judgment. While Bral is correct that it does not make commercial sense to contract for defective goods, the importer needs to prove at a minimum that it entered into a contract with the overseas plywood producer for a good of specific qualities that is to perform in a certain way -- a bar Bral failed to meet, the brief said (Bral Corporation v. U.S., CIT #20-00154).
CBP filed remand results in an Enforce and Protect Act case at the Court of International Trade Oct. 3, continuing to find products from importers Ikadan System USA and Weihai Gaosai Metal are subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on steel grating from China. The U.S. had filed a voluntary remand request to add the record of the Commerce Department's scope ruling to the record, but after putting it on the record, CBP stuck to its guns on the evasion finding, declaring that the scope ruling supported its initial decision (Ikadan System USA v. U.S., CIT #21-00592).
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 4 opinion found that CBP correctly classified two types of net wraps both used to wrap bales of harvested crops. The case was brought by RKW Klerks to contest CBP's classification of the wraps as synthetic "warp knit fabrics" classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6005.39.00. RKW Clerks had said they are instead "parts" of "harvesting or threshing machinery" under subheading 8433.90.50.
The Supreme Court's decision in West Virginia v. EPA demands that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reconsider its decision finding that a protest with CBP is needed to retroactively apply Section 301 duty exclusions, the appellants and importers ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings argued in an Oct. 4 brief. Seeking reconsideration at the appellate court, ARP and Harrison said that the Federal Circuit's opinion does not consider the EPA case, which embraced the "major questions doctrine" -- the idea that federal agencies need explicit congressional approval to regulate issues fundamental to the economy (ARP Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2176).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should dismiss a case seeking to release goods excluded over forced labor concerns with the stipulation that CBP allow the goods to be exported, plaintiff Virtus Nutrition said in a Sept. 29 brief at the Court of International Trade. Responding to the trade court's order to show cause why the action should not be tossed for a lack of prosecution, Virtus said that it does not oppose dismissal, and in fact favors it, provided that it be allowed to export the excluded palm oil shipments in accordance with the terms of the agreement signed between Virtus and CBP in February 2021 (Virtus Nutrition v. United States, CIT #21-00165).
The Court of International Trade erroneously upheld the Commerce Department's finding that an Australian exporter did not reimburse an affiliated importer for antidumping duties paid and subsequent decision not to deduct the amount of the duties from the exporter's U.S. price, United States Steel Corp. argued in a Sept. 30 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (United States Steel Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2078).
Importer TCW Trends and the U.S. signed a stipulation of dismissal submitted Sept. 30 to the Court of International Trade in a customs spat over men's knit tops and pants. TCW filed the case to argue that its tops and pants were made in a Qualifying Industrial Zone in Alexandria, Egypt, making the goods eligible for preferential duty-free treatment under General Note 3(a)(v) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. The entries were liquidated under HTS subheading 6103.43.15 and 6105.20.20. TCW Trends argued that CBP's finding that the merchandise didn't meet the duty-free eligibility requirements under the QIZ program was contrary to law (TCW Trends v. United States, CIT #12-00166).
Surety company American Home Assurance Co.'s (AHAC's) affirmative defense of laches requires it to prove that it suffered prejudice given the government's delay in commencing a legal action over uncollected antidumping duties. AHAC has failed to do so and thus cannot make its laches claims, the U.S. argued in a Sept. 28 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The surety company has failed to show either defense or economic prejudice in arguing that the case should be dismissed since it was filed beyond the statute of limitations to collect the duties under the bond, the U.S. said (United States v. American Home Assurance Company, CIT #20-00175).
The Court of International Trade should stay proceedings in a case challenging President Donald Trump's reversal of a tariff exclusion on bifacial solar panels pending resolution of a similar matter, plaintiffs JinkoSolar (U.S.) Inc. and Jinko Solar (U.S.) Industries argued in an unopposed stay motion (JinkoSolar (U.S.) Inc. v. United States, CIT #22-00241). The case should be halted until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit settles Solar Energy Industries Association, et al. v. United States, the brief said. In that case, the trade court found that the statute did not allow further trade-restricting measures once a tariff exclusion had been put in place (see 2111160032).