The Court of International Trade should not grant Nucor Corporation's stay motion in a countervailing duty case because Nucor has not shown that a stay would facilitate an efficient resolution of the case or conserve the court's resources or that "any duplication of efforts outweighs the detrimental effects of its requested indefinite stay," the U.S. argued in a June 24 reply brief (Nucor Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00070).
The Court of International Trade granted importer DS Services of America's motion for a preliminary injunction in its case seeking to reinstate a previously granted exclusion from Section 301 China duties for water coolers classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8418.69.0120. The court's order suspends the liquidation of the plaintiff's unliquidated entries while allowing the U.S. to continue to collect Section 301 duties, as the injunction is structured like a statutory injunction routinely entered in antidumping and countervailing duty cases (DS Services of America v. United States, CIT #22-00157).
Importer Global Aluminum Distributor in a June 24 reply brief dropped its opposition to defendant-intervenor Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee's bid to lift the stay order at the Court of International Trade in an Enforce and Protect Act case looking into aluminum extrusions from China. The action was brought by H&E Home and Classic Metals Suppliers, later joined by Global Aluminum as a consolidated plaintiff, to contest the CBP's finding that the plaintiffs were evading the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions by transshipping them through the Dominican Republic. The case was stayed pending the resolution in another matter brought by Global Aluminum over CBP's evasion finding (H&E Home v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00337).
The Court of International Trade should not grant the U.S.'s motion seeking an extension of time to file a reply brief in a case over whether commercial airline operator NetJets Aviation failed to collect customs user fees for airline ticket purchases, NetJets argued in a June 24 brief. The plaintiff said that the U.S.'s motion seeking the extension is improperly based on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio's stay rules during mediation since NetJets and CBP also have a case in that court that would resolve the CIT case. The plaintiff said a mediation did not result in a stay in the district court and that no stay had been granted there. NetJets did, though, consent to a shorter extension of time so that the U.S. could file its reply (NetJets Aviation, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00142).
The Court of International Trade in a June 24 opinion denied plaintiff Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps' move to amend its complaint in an Enforce and Protect Act evasion case to explicitly contest CBP's denial of its protests over the xanthan gum entries subject to the EAPA decision. Judge Gary Katzmann said that the motion was clearly untimely and futile, and found that the delay in filing the amended complaint was undue and that the plaintiff still fails to identify the protests it is contesting.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A remand where the Commerce Department reviews a particular issue is a new agency action and renders moot any arguments that a party did not exhaust its administrative remedies prior to the remand, said plaintiffs in an antidumping duty case, led by Ellwood City Forge Co., in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade on June 17. As such, the plaintiffs' arguments as to the agency's procedural obligations relating to on-site verification made during the remand proceeding were properly exhausted, the brief, recently made public, said (Ellwood City Forge Company v. U.S., CIT Consol. #21-00007).
The U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska allowed logistics company Lineage Logistics Holding to file a second amicus brief in a case over Jones Act penalties in light of the U.S.'s motion to dissolve the injunction that bars CBP from issuing new Jones Act penalties. Lineage Logistics filed the brief to back plaintiffs Kloosterboer International Forwarding (KIF) and Alaska Reefer Management (ARM) in opposing the move, arguing that the grounds for the injunction remain in place in that the government has yet to comply with the law to provide adequate notice and comment related to its treatment of the Bayside Canadian Rail line for the purposes of granting an exception to the Jones Act (Kloosterboer International Forwarding v. United States, D. Alaska # 3:21-00198).
The U.S., in an amended complaint, continues to fail to show that importer Crown Cork & Seal (CCS) committed fraud or gross negligence over misclassified metal lid imports, the importer argued in a June 22 motion to dismiss at the Court of International Trade. Seeking again to have the trade court toss the U.S.'s first two counts in the case, CCS said the amended complaint doesn't provide any new facts that can revive the two counts which Judge M. Miller Baker already dismissed (U.S. v. Crown Cork & Seal, CIT #21-00361).
The U.K. Court of Appeal in a June 21 judgment dismissed a case from Build-a-Bear Workshop over the classification of accessories for its stuffed bear imports. Build-a-Bear originally filed the case to avoid the 4.7% duty rate for the accessories, which included clothing and wigs, footwear, plastic and textile hearts and animal accessories, and seek duty-free treatment. In March, the Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery sided with Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs agency that the accessories should be classified as "other toys" (see 2104010047).