The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 30 opinion said that it is likely to have jurisdiction over Chinese exporter Ninestar Corp.'s challenge to its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Following Ninestar's motion for a preliminary injunction against its placement on the list, Judge Gary Katzmann ruled more narrowly, holding Ninestar is likely to show that jurisdiction is proper under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, which covers any civil action regarding "embargoes or other quantitative restrictions." While the U.S. said the UFLPA Entity List does not create an embargo since it establishes a rebuttable presumption, Katzmann said the court has exerted jurisdiction over similar embargoes where exemptions or reconsideration are granted.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 22 and Nov. 28 granted voluntary motions to dismiss six customs cases. One case, brought by importer POSCO International America Corp., challenged CBP's denial of its protest claiming an error in how the agency appraised and liquidated one of its entries (POSCO International America Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00421).
The U.S. opposed the bids by two groups of Canadian lumber exporters to intervene in two cases challenging the 2021 review of the antidumping duty order on softwood lumber products from Canada. The government said in its pair of briefs that since the exporters -- one group led by AJ Forest Products and the other by Chaleur Forest Products -- didn't actively participate in the review, they cannot intervene in the lawsuits (Government of Canada v. United States, CIT # 23-00187, -00188).
CBP improperly levied Section 301 duties against Greenington's bamboo furniture imports from China, the importer argued in a Nov. 27 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Greenington said CBP wasn't supported in finding that its entries didn't qualify for a Section 301 exclusion under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9903.88.67, which covers "household furniture of high-pressure laminated bamboo, other than babies' or children's furniture" set under subheading 9403.82.0015 (Greenington v. United States Customs and Border Protection, CIT # 23-00243).
The government's request for a remand in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation to provide the parties with access to confidential business information is a "hollow" one since the parties have already gained access to this information via a judicial protective order at the Court of International Trade, plaintiff Phoenix Metal Co. said. Opposing the voluntary remand request from the U.S., Phoenix said the court should further explain CBP's decision to reject any information deemed to be "new factual information" (Phoenix Metal Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00048).
The Court of International Trade should not grant improper Diamond Tools Technology's application for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act since the government's position in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation was "substantially justified" and the case presented a "matter of first impression and a novel issue," the U.S. argued in a Nov. 27 reply brief (Diamond Tools Technology v. United States, CIT # 20-00060).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
CBP failed to apply a Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion on G&H Diversified Manufacturing's steel tube entry, the importer argued in a Nov. 21 complaint at the Court of International Trade. G&H said CBP had said on at least three separate occasions that the classification of the imports was correct and that the classification was excluded from having to pay the national security duties as determined by the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (G&H Diversified Manufacturing v. U.S., CIT # 22-00130).
The Commerce Department properly hit exporter Kumar Industries with a 13.61% adverse facts available dumping rate due to the respondent's "inadequate explanations" regarding one of its partners' ownership interest in two unnamed companies, companies A and B, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Nov. 22 opinion. Judge Timothy Stanceu sustained the rate as part of the first antidumping duty review on glycine from India, finding that Kumar "raised more questions than it answered" in its submissions, preventing Commerce from conducting a proper affiliate analysis.