Importer Metal One America moved Aug. 31 to dismiss its customs case at the Court of International Trade concerning its imports of hot-rolled high carbon wire rod tire cord made of steel. In the case, the importer said its product, classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7213.91.3011, qualifies for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs (Metal One America v. U.S., CIT # 21-00503).
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 31 order dismissed importer Victaulic Company's customs case concerning its VicFlex sprinkler brackets, per the company's request. Victaulic said its brackets are properly classified as "parts" of machines for dispersing or spraying liquids under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8424.90.9080 and not subject to Section 301 duties (see 2207180024) (Victaulic v. U.S., CIT # 22-00022).
The U.S. "consistently fails to consider" the filing of a collection action in the Court of International Trade as a valid "'demand' for liquidated duties," surety firm Aegis Security Insurance Co. told the trade court in an Aug. 30 reply brief. Given this failure, the government is illegally trying to limit the concept of "demand" to the issuance of a bill in its attempt to get Aegis to pay a customs bond on entries that liquidated in 2006, the brief said (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 20-03628).
President Joe Biden on Aug. 30 announced four new nominations to federal district courts as part of his seventh round of judicial nominations. Colleen Holland, special counsel to Judge Elizabeth Wolford at the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, was nominated to the same New York court. Judge John Kazen, current magistrate judge for the Southern District of Texas, was nominated to the same Texas court. Micah Smith, assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Hawaii, was nominated for the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. Ramona Manglona, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, was nominated for the same court.
Importer Cambridge Isotope Laboratories told the Court of International Trade in an Aug. 30 letter as part of its customs suit that it filed a request for a changed circumstances review with the Commerce Department. In the customs case, Cambridge Isotopes said an enriched ammonium sulfate isotope was incorrectly placed within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on ammonium sulfate from China (see 2304280022). The changed circumstances review concerns the enriched 15N ammonium sulfate isotope (Cambridge Isotope Laboratories v. United States, CIT # 23-00080).
The Organization of Professional Aviculturists and the Lineolated Parakeet Society told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit that the Fish and Wildlife Service illegally rejected their petitions to add two avian species to the list of birds that can be imported to the U.S. The avian advocacy groups argued that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida erroneously dismissed their case by ruling that the plain language of the Wild Exotic Bird Conservation Act does not require species to be listed by the specific countries of origin from which they can be imported (Organization of Professional Aviculturists v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 11th Cir. # 23-11984).
A recent legal case in the EU helped clear up how the European Commission considers the factors it points to when identifying if a company has evaded antidumping duties, said Simran Sethi, senior manager at OCR Global Trade Management Software Solutions, during an Aug. 30 webinar. Speaking to the importance of import compliance in light of recent judicial developments in the U.S. and abroad, Sethi laid out the four criteria the commission considers when making its evasion findings.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. backed the Commerce Department's valuation of exporter Jilin Bright Future Chemical's inputs of bituminous coal and coal tar as part of the 2020-21 review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China. Filing its response to Jilin Bright's claims (see 2306080054) at the Court of International Trade, the government argued that the exporter failed to dispute Commerce's formula for converting useful heat value (UHV) to gross calorific value (GCV) as part of the BT coal valuation at the administrative level. As a result, Jilin Bright did not exhaust its administrative remedies, the brief said (Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00336).
Exporter Tau-Ken Temir waived its arguments against the Commerce Department's decision to grant the company's first two extension requests in part and reject the third request, the U.S. argued in a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The government said that because TKT did not raise the issues either at Commerce or at the Court of International Trade in its case on the countervailing duty investigation on silicon metal from Kazakhstan, the appellate court need not address the claims (Tau-Ken Temir v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).