The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 6 notice dismissed a customs case filed by Grobest Global Service over frozen tilapia fillets entered under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 0304.61.0000. The importer filed the case to contest CBP's assessment of 10% Section 301 duties on the fillets, arguing that the entries qualify for an exclusion from the duties under secondary subheading 9903.88.43. Grobest filed a notice of dismissal without an explanation (Grobest Global Service v. United States, CIT #20-03827).
Antidumping duty respondent Oman Fasteners will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit a case regarding the constructed value calculation in an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from Oman, according to an Oct. 6 notice of appeal. The Court of International Trade in August found the Commerce Department justified its switch on remand between surrogate companies, despite calls from the exporter under review to use a different company (see 2208090008) (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. U.S., CIT #15-00214).
The International Trade Commission was wrong not to cumulate imports of cold-rolled steel flat products from Brazil with imports from China, India, Japan, South Korea and the U.K. in a five-year sunset review of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on the products, U.S. company Cleveland-Cliffs argued in an Oct. 5 complaint the Court of International Trade. The ITC further erred by focusing on the likely volume of the Brazilian imports in its cumulation analysis in the injury investigation, resulting in an "impermissible circular" injury analysis, the complaint said (Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. v. United States, CIT #22-00257).
When the Court of International Trade on Sept. 13 ruled that the Commerce Department could use adverse facts available for use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, an appeal of the matter seemed inevitable. The trade court had issued a string of opinions rejecting Commerce's ability to use AFA in this way, and the U.S. had refused to appeal, leading to the issue floating in legal limbo given CIT's lack of power to issue a precedential opinion. Judge M. Miller Baker's opinion upholding use of AFA put the power to appeal in the hands of the countervailing duty respondents (see 2209140029). While an appeal may seem straightforward, other concerns cloud the prospect.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Customs broker license exam test taker Byungmin Chae filed an informal brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 3 in his bid to get credit for a handful of questions on the April 2018 customs broker license exam. Responding to the U.S.'s brief defending its answers for questions 5, 27 and 33 on the test, Chae further attempted to make his case for why his selected answers were correct (Byungmin Chae v. Janet Yellen, Fed. Cir. #22-2017).
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 5 confidential opinion sent back parts and upheld parts of the Commerce Department's final results in the 2018 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea. In a letter submitted to the litigants, Judge Mark Barnett gave the parties until Oct. 12 to review the opinion over information that should be deemed confidential. In the case, Commerce decided not to consider off-peak electricity sold for less than adequate remuneration (Nucor Corporation v. United States, CIT #21-00182).
CBP did not violate the law by refusing to make a referral to the Commerce Department on a question of country of origin since CBP was "fully able to determine" that the wooden cabinets and vanities at issue in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation were covered by the relevant orders, petitioner Masterbrand Cabinets argued in an Oct. 4 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Skyview Cabinet USA v. United States, CIT #22-00080).
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 4 opinion ruled that CBP properly classified net wraps used for bailing hay as a warp knit fabric under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6005.39.00. Judge Mark Barnett ruled against classification under plaintiff RKW Klerks' preferred subheading 8433.90.50 as "parts" of "harvesting or threshing machinery."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate Oct. 3 in the Meyer v. U.S. case. In the August Meyer opinion, the appellate court ruled CBP has no basis to consider a country's non-market economy status when determining whether to grant first sale treatment to a transaction (see 2208110060). The case now heads back to the Court of International Trade to determine how to appraise the cookware imported by Meyer at the center of the action. Counsel for Meyer indicated that retrial and mediation are being considered (see 2208240070) (Meyer Corporation v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1932).