The Court of International Trade's decision ordering CBP to reliquidate customs entries flatly cuts against a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision that ruled against reliquidation after a court case led to a higher dumping rate for a different exporter, retail giant Target told the appellate court (Target v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2274).
A series of opinions from the Court of International Trade concerning whether the U.S. can file a counterclaim in classification cases do "not seem to change the fundamentals of classification litigation," customs lawyer Lawrence Friedman of Barnes Richardson said in a blog post. If the opinions are sustained on appeal, potential government claims seeking a different classification than the one initially used at liquidation by CBP may just be moved "from the counterclaim bucket to the defense bucket," the post said.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Steel importer NLMK Pennsylvania and the U.S. asked for another 60 days to continue hammering out the details in the steel company's suit on the Commerce Department's refusal to grant it exclusions for Section 232 steel and aluminum duties. The parties initially sought a stay in August, telling the court that they had "reached an agreement in principle to settle the case" (see 2308100018). In their joint status report, NLMK and the U.S. said to effectuate the deal, the U.S. "must review NLMK's import data," adding that both sides are working to collect and review that data (NLMK Pennsylvania v. U.S., CIT # 21-00507).
U.S. steel companies "confuse" a case from Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) seeking reconsideration of an International Trade Commission negligibility decision due to new facts with an "attack on the original negligibility decision," Erdemir said. Filing a reply brief to the steel companies' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the Court of International Trade's "residual jurisdiction," Erdemir said the true nature of its action challenges the ITC's "refusal to initiate a reconsideration proceeding to reconsider the neglibitily determination" of hot-rolled steel from Turkey "in light of the successful appeal of Colakoglu" (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT # 22-00349).
The Supreme Court of the U.S. on Oct. 2 denied a petition for writ of certiorari from importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, regarding an opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit requiring protests to be filed within 180 days of liquidation. The appellate court rejected the claim that protests can be filed within 180 days of the date the Commerce Department issues antidumping and countervailing duty instructions to CBP (see 2302060029).
The Commerce Department failed to support its position in a countervailing duty case that the South Korean government gave up some revenue through the provision of its emissions trading program, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Sept. 29 opinion. Judge Mark Barnett wrote that while the Korean government may lose money by fully allocating emissions permits, it doesn't necessarily do so, given that companies that receive a standard allocation can obtain the permits through means that don't involve lining the government's pockets.
New Jersey jewelry company 21st Millennium and two individuals "who own or control the business," Iqbal Virani and Aqib Virani, admitted to evading customs duties on gold jewelry imports, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey announced. Per the terms of a settlement agreement, the company and the two owners also agreed to pay $1 million to the U.S. after admitting to evading over $400,000 in customs duties.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Countervailing duty petitioner Rebar Trade Action Coalition's attempt to undermine the Commerce Department's remand decision finding that ship building company Nur Gemicilik ve Tic, an affiliate of respondent Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret, is not a cross-owned input supplier "fall[s] short," the U.S. said (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 21-00565).