The Court of International Trade on Nov. 22 and Nov. 28 granted voluntary motions to dismiss six customs cases. One case, brought by importer POSCO International America Corp., challenged CBP's denial of its protest claiming an error in how the agency appraised and liquidated one of its entries (POSCO International America Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00421).
The U.S. opposed the bids by two groups of Canadian lumber exporters to intervene in two cases challenging the 2021 review of the antidumping duty order on softwood lumber products from Canada. The government said in its pair of briefs that since the exporters -- one group led by AJ Forest Products and the other by Chaleur Forest Products -- didn't actively participate in the review, they cannot intervene in the lawsuits (Government of Canada v. United States, CIT # 23-00187, -00188).
CBP improperly levied Section 301 duties against Greenington's bamboo furniture imports from China, the importer argued in a Nov. 27 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Greenington said CBP wasn't supported in finding that its entries didn't qualify for a Section 301 exclusion under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9903.88.67, which covers "household furniture of high-pressure laminated bamboo, other than babies' or children's furniture" set under subheading 9403.82.0015 (Greenington v. United States Customs and Border Protection, CIT # 23-00243).
The government's request for a remand in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation to provide the parties with access to confidential business information is a "hollow" one since the parties have already gained access to this information via a judicial protective order at the Court of International Trade, plaintiff Phoenix Metal Co. said. Opposing the voluntary remand request from the U.S., Phoenix said the court should further explain CBP's decision to reject any information deemed to be "new factual information" (Phoenix Metal Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00048).
The Court of International Trade should not grant improper Diamond Tools Technology's application for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act since the government's position in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation was "substantially justified" and the case presented a "matter of first impression and a novel issue," the U.S. argued in a Nov. 27 reply brief (Diamond Tools Technology v. United States, CIT # 20-00060).
A case challenging President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties onto derivative products shouldn't be stayed pending the U.S. Supreme Court's review of the Chevron deference doctrine, the government told the high court in a Nov. 27 brief. Replying to exporter Oman Fasteners' petition for a writ of certiorari, DOJ said the case involving the review of Chevron, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, will not affect the present dispute because Loper Bright doesn't involve "challenges to actions taken by the President" (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., Sup. Ct. # 23-432).
The World Trade Organization's Dispute Settlement Body on Nov. 27 agreed to Indonesia's request to set up a dispute panel to review the EU's countervailing duties on biodiesel from Indonesia, the WTO announced. The EU said it believes its duties "are fully justified, adding that it is confident its measures will be declared in line with WTO law," the WTO said. The U.S., the U.K., Norway, Russia, Thailand, Singapore, Japan, China, Canada, Argentina and Turkey reserved their third party rights to take part in the panel proceedings.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. on Nov. 27 filed a partial motion to remand regarding the Commerce Department's duty drawback adjustment in exporter Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret's case concerning the antidumping duty investigation on aluminum foil from Turkey. The government said it wants another chance to consider or further explain the "ratio used for the duty drawback adjustment" in the case after considering Assan's arguments. Assan consented to the request, while the petitioners, led by the Aluminum Association Trade Enforcement Working Group, said it takes no position on the motion without having looked at a copy of the motion (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 21-00616).
CBP failed to apply a Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion on G&H Diversified Manufacturing's steel tube entry, the importer argued in a Nov. 21 complaint at the Court of International Trade. G&H said CBP had said on at least three separate occasions that the classification of the imports was correct and that the classification was excluded from having to pay the national security duties as determined by the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (G&H Diversified Manufacturing v. U.S., CIT # 22-00130).