Byungmin Chae, a Nebraska man who took the customs broker license exam, petitioned the Supreme Court of the U.S. to hear his appeal of his test results. Chae appealed his test results to CBP, the Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, receiving credit for some of the question answers he challenged, but ultimately falling just one correct answer shy of a passing grade on the April 2018 exam (Byungmin Chae v. Janet Yellen, U.S. Sup. Ct. # 23-200).
The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 6 opinion granted the U.S. request for a voluntary remand to reconsider the Commerce Department's decision to reject Section 232 steel and aluminum duty exclusions for three companies, AM/NS Calvert, California Steel Industries and Valbruna Slater Stainless. Judge M. Miller Baker said that if on the remand, the government grants the exclusions, Commerce must tell CBP to "honor the exclusions" on entries that have not finally liquidated "when those requests were originally denied." The judge also rejected the U.S. motion to dismiss the case as to the finally liquidated entries, finding that the Administrative Procedure Act allows for reliquidation of finally liquidated entries since no other statute expressly forbids this relief.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Counsel for importer Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co. was allowed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to appear remotely for the company's oral argument in its customs suit on plastic-dipped knit gloves. Magid Gloves brought its case to the appellate court after the Court of International Trade said the gloves belong under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 6116 instead of under heading 3926 (see 2203280037). In its arguments, the importer said the case rests on the definition of "completely embedded," claiming that "if the knit fabric making up the shell of the glove is completely embedded in plastic, the gloves" would not fit under Section XI and, thus, from heading 6116 (Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1793).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate Sept. 1 in a case on the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against countervailing duty respondent Jangho Group. In a ruling on the 2013 review of the CVD order on aluminum extrusions, the appellate court upheld the Court of International Trade in its ruling that Commerce properly found the Chinese government and Jangho Group failed to respond to the best of their ability on whether aluminum extrusions producers are "authorities" (see 2205100076) (Taizhou United Imp. & Exp. Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2000).
A case concerning the Commerce Department's refusal to start a successor-in-interest changed circumstances review for exporter GreenFirst Forest Products under the countervailing duty investigation on softwood lumber products from Canada has been dismissed with the agreement of all parties (GreenFirst Forest Products v. U.S., CIT # 22-00097).
The U.S. asked the Court of International Trade for a voluntary remand in a countervailing duty case to reconsider the calculation of benchmark prices for land and ocean freight. The government said its practice regarding the calculation of these figures has evolved since the present case was brought by Risen Energy Co. and JA Solar on the 2019 review of the CVD order on solar cells from China (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00231).
The Commerce Department erred when it found that wood boards used to produce downstream cabinet products were wood “moulding and millwork” products, importer Hardware Resources said in an Aug. 31 complaint to the Court of International Trade. The suit contests Commerce's Aug. 2 final scope ruling which found that imported edge-glued boards were within the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wood mouldings and millwork products from China (see 2308080002) (Hardware Resources v. U.S., CIT # 23-00150).
An assessment of domestic interested party willingness to participate in five-year reviews of antidumping duty orders on stilbenic optical brightening agents from China and Taiwan doesn't itself constitute a "review," the International Trade Commission said in a Sept. 1 motion at the Court of International Trade. The ITC asked the court to affirm the termination of the five-year review of the AD orders at issue (Archroma U.S., Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00354).
On remand, CBP reaffirmed its determination that Fedmet Resources Corporation evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain magnesia carbon bricks (MCBs) from China, it said in its Sept. 1 remand redetermination to the Court of International Trade. The agency had sought and was granted a voluntary remand to consider several issues raised in Fedmet’s motion for judgment (see 2306290022) (Fedmet Resources v. U.S., CIT # 21-00248).