Pencil importer Royal Brush Manufacturing was required to file protests before it could challenge CBP's allegedly improper liquidations under an Enforce and Protect Act antidumping duty evasion investigation, the Court of International Trade ruled on Dec. 15. Dismissing the company's case for lack of jurisdiction, Judge Mark Barnett echoed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling in Juice Farms v. U.S. in ruling that "all liquidations, whether legal or not, are subject to the timely protest requirement."
Charles McGonigal, a former FBI agent in the New York Counterintelligence Division, was sentenced to 50 months in prison for his work with sanctioned Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York announced in a Dec. 14 news release. McGonigal in August pleaded guilty to violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, including by, following his departure from the FBI, investigating a rival Russian oligarch in return for payments from Deripaska (see 2308160029).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer CHR. Hansen filed a notice of dismissal in its customs suit at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 12. The company filed the case in December 2021 to contest CBP's denial of its protest claiming its probiotics powder of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2106.90.9897, dutiable at 6.4%, should be classified under subheading 3002.90.1000. Counsel for the importer didn't respond to a request for comment (CHR. Hansen v. United States, CIT # 21-00636).
Exporter Canadian Solar International Limited filed a Dec. 15 notice of dismissal at the Court of International Trade in its case challenging the Commerce Department's anti-circumvention finding on solar panels from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam. In the proceeding, Commerce found that solar panels from these nations are circumventing the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on crystaline silicon photovoltaic cells from China (Canadian Solar International v. United States, CIT # 23-00195).
Importer Amsted Rail Co. and its Mexican maquiladora affiliate ASF-K de Mexico again brought conflict-of-interest claims to the Court of International Trade involving the International Trade Commission's injury finding on freight rail couplers from Mexico. The Dec. 15 complaint was brought alongside its lawsuit against the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation (see 2311210077) (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00268).
The Commerce Department "ignores critical facts" in its threshold for differentiating between different pasta types in an antidumping duty review, exporter La Molisana said in a Dec. 13 reply brief brief (La Molisana v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2060).
The Court of International Trade wouldn't be able to "effectuate its judgment" without the authority to order reliquidation past the applicable 90-day time frame, the U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 15 reply brief. Defending the trade court's dismissal of retail giant Target's suit against a court-ordered reliquidation of Target entries that erroneously received a favorable antidumping duty rate, the U.S. distinguished the spat from Cemex v. U.S., in which the Federal Circuit barred reliquidation (Target Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2274).
The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 14 opinion granted the government's request for a voluntary remand in a duty evasion case on hardwood plywood from China in light of two recent judicial opinions. One decision saw the Commerce Department reverse course on whether exporter Vietnam Finewood Co.'s goods are subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders, while the other said it was illegal for CBP not to give parties to Enforce and Protect Act actions access to business confidential information.
India appealed an April World Trade Organization panel report that said its duties on information and communications technology goods destined to the EU violated India's tariff commitments, the WTO announced Dec. 14 (see 2304170018). The EU, Japan and Taiwan each have brought cases to the WTO to dispute the Indian tariffs, and India filed a similar appeal of Japan's case against the tariffs in May (see 2305250056). The WTO can't address the appeals because it doesn't have a functioning appellate body (see 2311200078).