The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department's remand results after the agency further explained its surrogate value selection for coal-based carbonized materials and the financial statements used to calculate the surrogate financial ratios in the 2018-19 antidumping review on activated carbon, both DOJ and defendent-intervenors told CIT in separate responses submitted March 1 (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00131).
toarticlessource documents
Search Primer
Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.
Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "surrogate value").
Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead. (e.g., CIT).
Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., CBP +ruling).
Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., ruling -NY).
Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls") or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 27 decision denied importer Crown Cork & Seal USA's bid to dismiss fraud and gross negligence claims in a customs penalty case. Judge M. Miller Baker ruled that, contrary to Crown Cork's characterization, the fraud claim is sufficiently specific and both claims clear the notice requirements of Rule 8 as set in the Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal cases.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Feb. 24 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Feb. 23 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Frozen risottos are classified as pre-cooked foods under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States heading 1904, even though the risottos are only par-cooked and require more cooking by the consumer, CBP said in a recently released headquarters ruling. Though the importer argued for classification as food preparations of HTS heading 2106, CBP said foods may be considered pre-cooked if they require up to 12 minutes of additional cooking time, and the frozen risottos only require cooking for two to seven minutes more, CBP said in HQ H325964.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: