Importer Nutricia North America told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that classifying its substances used to "treat life-threatening diseases in young children" as food preparations "not elsewhere specified" as opposed to "medicaments" or items "for the use or benefit" of handicapped people would lead to the "parents of very ill children" paying higher prices for these substances. In its opening brief on April 30, Nutricia said that this isn't the result Congress intended and that the Harmonized Tariff Schedule "can and should be interpreted to avoid that result" (Nutricia North America v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1436).
Exporter Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. responded to a host arguments from the U.S. regarding the Commerce Department's surrogate value calculations on a variety of activated carbon inputs as part of the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China. In a reply brief filed last week at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Carbon Activated said the Court of International Trade erred in sustaining Commerce's surrogate financial ratios and surrogate values for carbonized metal, coal tar, hydrochloric acid, steam and ocean freight (Carbon Activated v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2413).
Exporter Hyundai Steel Co. on April 26 said that the U.S. attempted to "shield itself under the blanket of" the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's 1999 decision in AK Steel v. U.S. in its bid to countervail the Port of Incheon program in South Korea. However, AK Steel is "inapposite" for the present case since it came at a time before the existing Uruguay Round Agreements Act CVD statute and, as such, didn't contemplate the provision on what constitutes a countervailable benefit (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1100).
A U.S. motion to reconsider a Court of International Trade decision (see 2404180041) finding that CBP defied the implicit contractual term of reasonableness in waiting eight years to demand payment under a customs bond from a surety company is "both procedurally and substantively flawed," surety Aegis Security Insurance Co. said (U.S. v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 20-03628).
Trade lawyers said that recent legislation expanding the statute of limitations on sanctions violations from five to 10 years comes with clear expectations: costlier and longer sanctions investigations.
Australia, Japan and Singapore, the co-convenors of the e-commerce negotiations at the World Trade Organization, said during their April 22-25 talks that work will shift to the "final decision-making phase" during which members will focus on "domestic consultations and conduct political outreach to try to close the gaps on remaining issues," the WTO said.
The U.K. added a general license under its Russia and Belarus sanctions regime allowing legal service providers to receive and send payments to and from or on behalf of a sanctioned party. Sanctioned parties are likewise allowed to "pay professional legal fees, Counsel's fees, and/or Expenses to a Law Firm, a Legal Adviser, Counsel or a provider of Expenses for Legal Services which have been provided to that" sanctioned party. The legal fees may not exceed 1 million British pounds "per Law Firm" for the duration of the license, which ends Oct. 28.
Kitchenware retailer Williams-Sonoma agreed to pay $3.2 million in civil penalties and "stop making false and misleading claims about the origins of its products," settling a lawsuit brought in a California court, DOJ announced. The agency alleged that Williams-Sonoma violated a Federal Trade Commission administrative order barring the company from advertising wholly imported goods and goods containing "significant imported content" as being "Made in the USA" (U.S. v. Williams-Sonoma, N.D. Cal. # 24-02396).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 29 issued its mandate in a case on the tariff classification of importer RKW Klerks' net wrap products, used in a machine to bale harvested crops. In March, the court said the products are not "parts" of harvesting machinery but in fact are "warp knit fabric," dutiable at 10% under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6005.39.00 (see 2403070047). The court clarified that when an item is "consumable," such as "bullets in a gun, staples in a stapler, or film in a camera," it's not meant solely for use within the machine just because it's used exclusively by the machine. Here, the net wrap is similarly "never a part of the baling machine" since the output product is the net wrap packaged around a hay bale (RKW Klerks v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1210).
The Supreme Court on April 29 turned down the chance to review a lawsuit on whether defunct Lebanese bank Jammal Trust Bank is immune from being sued for supporting Hezbollah as an "instrumentality of a foreign state" under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The question posed by the writ of certiorari was whether a defendant's status as an "instrumentality of a foreign state" kicks in at the time of the filing of the complaint against the company, as the high court held in Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, or at any time after the suit is filed, as found by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. Jammal Trust Bank claimed it became an instrumentality of Lebanon after it was sued when it "entered state-supervised liquidation" (Bartlett v. Baasiri, Sup. Ct. # 23-568).