The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A U.S. importer of 3D-printing pens argued in the Court of International Trade that its pens should be reclassified as toys, or otherwise as either mechanical heating devices or motorized hand tools. Such an action would reduce or eliminate the antidumping duty for its products (Quantified Operations Limited v. U.S., CIT # 22-00178).
Canadian softwood lumber exporters argued Monday that they should be able to intervene in a growing case regarding the Commerce Department’s 2021 administrative review of the antidumping duties on their products (Government of Canada v. U.S., CIT # 23-00187).
CBP's failure to seek clarification from the Commerce Department on whether importer Vanguard Trading Co.'s surface products were subject to the antidumping duty order on quartz surface products from China as part of an AD evasion case was "arbitrary and capricious," Vanguard told the Court of International Trade in a Dec. 4 complaint (Vanguard Trading Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00253).
Chinese exporter Ninestar Corp. moved at the Court of International Trade to unseal and unredact the administrative record in its case against the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force's (FLETF) decision to add the company to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Ninestar said that while the trade court's recent order mandating disclosure to Ninestar's counsel of the government's evidentiary record marked some progress, the company's counsel said they remain "hobbled" since they can't share these materials with their client (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit judges Alan Lourie, Kara Stoll and Tiffany Cunningham questioned both the position of the government and affected domestic producers in a Dec. 5 oral argument on whether CBP properly denied payouts of interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest, on antidumping and countervailing duties under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (Adee Honey Farms v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2105) (Hilex Poly Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2106).
The Court of International Trade ruled Dec. 4 that a medical food company's imports would be classified as food, not as pharmaceutical products.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 1 order stayed a customs fraud case against Zhe "John" Liu pending resolution of the ongoing criminal investigation of Liu. The civil case against Liu and importer GL Paper Distribution was filed at the trade court in July 2022, in which the U.S. alleged that Liu operated a scheme via a series of companies that imported steel wire hangers that were given false countries of origin. Liu allegedly created the companies for a transshipment scheme that involved sending wire hangers from China subject to antidumping and countervailing duties through Malaysia, India and Thailand in a bid to disguise their origin (see 2303160050). Judge Jane Restani stayed the government's case against Liu and GL Paper, ordering the parties to file a joint status report April 1 (U.S. v. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT # 22-00215).
The U.S. is "in the process of recommending settlement" in a case from steel importer NLMK Pennsylvania regarding the Commerce Department's refusal to grant it exclusions for Section 232 steel and aluminum duties, the government and NLMK said in a joint status report at the Court of International Trade. The parties asked the court to allow them to file another joint status report in 30 days (NLMK Pennsylvania v. United States, CIT # 21-00507).