The U.S. sought reconsideration of the Court of International Trade’s May 2 ruling that importer BASF Corp.'s fish oil ethyl ester concentrates are “extracts of fish” under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 1603, not “food preparations” under heading 2106 (see 2505020018). It said the court “overlooked” Explanatory Note 16.03 for heading 1603 to create an impracticably broad definition of "fish extracts" (BASF Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 13-00318).
The Court of International Trade in a confidential order on June 5 sustained in part and remanded in part the Commerce Department's final results in the new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. AD petitioner Catfish Farmers of America brought the suit to challenge the 2022-23 new shipper review of Vietnamese exporter Co May Import Export Company, which granted the company a de minimis dumping rate. The petitioner argued Co May didn't actually make a bona fide sale in the U.S. during the review period (Catfish Farmers of America v. U.S., CIT # 24-00126).
The Court of International Trade denied the U.S. motion to stay proceedings in a case challenging the elimination of the de minimis threshold for Chinese products. Detroit Axle, the importer challenging the government, then filed an emergency motion requesting the dates ordered by CIT be moved earlier to "preserve Detroit Axle’s ability to obtain meaningful relief" (Axle of Dearborn, d/b/a Detroit Axle v. Dep't of Commerce, CIT # 25-00091).
The importers challenging the tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act requested that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reject the government's bid for an emergency stay, telling the appellate court that the importers will be irreparably harmed by the stay while the president "is not harmed by the denial of authority he does not legally possess" (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
Chinese exporter Yingli Energy on June 3 supported its argument that the Court of International Trade should strike down the Commerce Department’s usual presumption that exporters in non-market economies are under government control (Yingli Energy (China) Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00131).
The Court of International Trade on June 9 sent back a Commerce Department scope ruling excluding exporter Cheng Shin Rubber Industry's temporary-use spare tires from the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicles and light truck tires from Taiwan. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce improperly added a requirement that subject tires be for "regular use" in a vehicle, noting that the agency's interpretation doesn't appear in the "statutory language" and is undercut by the "terms of the Order itself." The judge said there's evidence showing Cheng Shin's tires "are of a size that fit passenger cars," which falls under the plain meaning of the order's scope.
The State of California appealed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California's decision to dismiss its case challenging tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, filing on June 4 a motion to expedite the appeal. California's proposed schedule would see briefing conclude on Aug. 18, with California's opening brief due on June 30 (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, 9th Cir. # 25-3493).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 5 said the Commerce Department improperly prioritized "transparency" over its statutory duty to compare physically identical products in an antidumping duty review.
The 12 states challenging the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to reject the government's bid for an emergency stay, telling the appellate court that the Trump administration's claim that it will be irreparably harmed without a stay are undermined by administration officials' own statements (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York: