The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade rejected exporter Ancientree Cabinet's arguments that the Commerce Department violated the law with its financial ratio calculations in an antidumping duty investigation. Judge Gary Katzmann ruled March 21 that Commerce adequately explained its ratio calculation methodology on remand and that, contrary to Ancientree's arguments, the agency didn't violate any normal or established practice.
The Court of International Trade ruled in a March 21 opinion that a customs spat over reimported swimsuits will head to phase two of trial. After sorting through whether a Warehousing Agreement between two related companies sufficed as a lease or similar use agreement during the first phase, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled that this condition was satisfied for classification under a duty-free tariff provision for U.S. goods returned. The court will now see if the remaining conditions are satisfied in order to grant SGS Sports duty-free treatment of the reimported swimwear.
The Court of International Trade on March 18 dismissed a lawsuit brought by a domestic pipe producer seeking to compel CBP to provide it with information related to an alleged duty evasion scheme by two importers. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that while the trade court did have jurisdiction to hear the case, Wheatland Tube Company improperly submitted its requests for information to CBP, and the agency properly rejected Wheatland's request to revoke a ruling letter.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Labor Department said that it properly relied on information from senior legal counsel for AT&T when it denied a unionized group of former AT&T call workers trade adjustment assistance, in March 17 remand results at the Court of International Trade. Labor Certifying Officer at the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance Hope Kinglock said one member of AT&T's senior legal counsel team "demonstrated an active knowledge and understanding of the statutory requirement of Section 222(d)(3)(B) of the Trade Act" requested by Labor. "The Department considered this diligent effort to seek out the best official to certify information on behalf of AT&T, which, together with the factors noted above, contributed to the Department’s determination that it is reasonable to conclude that information that [AT&T's legal counsel] provided later in the investigation was accurate and complete without certification," Kinglock said (Communications Workers of America Local 4123, on behalf of Former Employees of AT&T Services Inc. v. U.S. Secretary of Labor, CIT #20-00075).
Nucor Corporation says the Commerce Department should have added countervailing duties in an administrative review for the South Korean government's provision of electricity below cost for certain tariff classes, instead of finding the provision of electricity conferred a "non-measurable benefit." In its March 18 complaint at the Court of International Trade, Nucor took particular issue with Commerce's decision to run a "tier three" analysis into the alleged benefit (Nucor Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00050).
Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps should not be allowed to amend its complaint since the case cannot be amended to claim jurisdiction over a denied protest after the 180-day window to file a challenge has lapsed, the Justice Department said in a March 18 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The U.S. also contested Dr. Bronner's motion since it sought to only amend the complaint and not the summons (All One God Faith v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-00164).
The Commerce Department's decision to deem countervailable exporter Dongbu Steel's debt-for-equity swaps was unsupported, and violated the agency's own standard practice of not reexamining subsidy programs that were previously found non-countervailable without any new information, Dongbu Steel said in a March 17 complaint at the Court of International Trade (KG Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00047).
Two chainsaw chain and blade importers, TriLink Saw Chain and TriLink Global, agreed to pay $525,000 to settle allegations that the companies misclassified their imports, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Iowa said. The U.S. alleged that the importers purposely classified their chain saw chains and blades from September 2018 through June 2019 under the wrong Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading to avoid paying Section 301 China tariffs -- a violation of the False Claims Act.