The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. filed a motion to dismiss a customs suit from importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Supply, claiming that for the 33 entries at issue, the lawsuit challenging the denied protests was untimely, the importer lacked standing to sue or that the company failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted (Acquisition 362 v. United States, CIT # 24-00011).
The U.S. on April 17 filed for partial reconsideration of a Court of International Trade judgment that held the government waited too long to make a demand for payment under a customs bond, violating an "implied contractual term." The government said that it couldn't have "anticipated raising or discussing the issue" of an "implied contractual term of a reasonable time for demand," so it seeks to "do so here" (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 20-03628).
The Court of International Trade sent back the Commerce Department's finding that exporter East Sea Seafoods Joint Stock Co. qualified for a separate antidumping duty rate in the 2019-20 review of the AD order on catfish from Vietnam, remarking that the agency failed to "show its work." Judge M. Miller Baker additionally remanded Commerce's methodology for calculating exporter Green Farms' AD rate and selection of India over Indonesia as the primary surrogate nation for setting the rate for exporter NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Company.
Two officials of an Iraq-based weapons dealer -- Syrian national Mohamad Deiry and Lebanese national Samer Rayya -- were charged with conspiring to ship munitions from the U.S. to Sudan and Iraq without a license, DOJ announced. An indictment, unsealed April 15, alleged the pair violated the Arms Export Control Act and conspired to commit money laundering to advance the "illicit procurement activities."
Importer Blue Sky the Color of Imagination will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last week's Court of International Trade decision regarding the classification of the company's notebooks with calendars (see 2404100052), the notice of appeal said. In its decision, the trade court classified the goods under its own preferred Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading, 4820.10.20.10, rather than one of the subheadings advanced by Blue Sky or CBP. The judge said the court should prefer readings of the HTS that establish "conformity" across both the English and French translations of the Harmonized System, where it was used to set the HTS (Blue Sky the Color of Imagination v. U.S., CIT # 21-00624).
The U.S. voluntarily dismissed its customs penalty appeal brought against surety firm American Home Assurance Co., according to an April 17 joint stipulation of voluntarily dismissal filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (United States v. American Home Assurance Co., Fed. Cir. # 24-1069).
Parties in a customs case on the classification of human interface controllers will tell the Court of International Trade by May 20 if they will proceed with the case under "summary judgment motions or request for a trial," Judge Timothy Stanceu said in an April 16 order, noting that a status conference won't be held April 19 as originally planned. Importer Robert Bosch brought suit in 2020 to contest CBP's classification of the controllers under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8473.70.9900, dutiable at 2.6% (see 2303090055) (Robert Bosch v. U.S., CIT # 20-00028).
The Court of International Trade on April 17 said that after the Commerce Department decided to continue an antidumping duty investigation on Mexican tomatoes initially paused in 1996, it must use the original investigation period, 1995-96, and not the later period of 2018-19. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled that the statute and congressional intent are clear that when Commerce resumes a suspended AD investigation, it must stick with the original investigation period.
The Ukraine High Anti-Corruption Court on April 10 upheld the Ministry of Justice's bid to impose sanctions and confiscate the assets of former Minister of Education and Science Dmytro Tabachnyk, according to an unofficial translation. The court noted that Tabachnyk is in the "temporarily occupied territories" and helps support the creation and functioning of the occupying administrations. The Ukrainian government sought to confiscate five land plots, a residential building, half a share of an apartment and monetary assets from the former minister. Ukraine's enforcement of its sanctions regime takes the form of asset freezes, the seizure of property and criminal sanctions, according to a blog post from global law firm Baker McKenzie. Ukraine passed legislation last year allowing for the "expropriation of property of" sanctioned parties.