CBP illegally classified rough, unworked emerald stones imported by Fine Emeralds, the company argued in a June 22 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The customs agency classified the goods under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7103.10.40, dutiable at 10.5%, while Fine Emeralds is claiming that the proper home for the emeralds is subheading 7103.10.20, free of duty. Subheading 7103.10.40 provides for precious stones, whether or not worked but not strung, mounted or set, "Other," while subheading 7103.10.20 provides for unworked precious stones. The complaint said that on entry the merchandise was described on the commercial invoice as "rough emeralds," adding that they were neither "simply sawn nor roughly shaped" (Fine Emeralds v. United States, CIT # 20-03928).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied importer Smith-Cooper International's bid for 3,000 additional words in its reply brief as part of a suit on a scope case concerning Vandewater International's steel branch outlets. SCI filed a 10,000-word reply brief days after making the request to waive the word limit requirements. Judge Alan Lourie denied the request, telling SCI it must refile its reply brief, not to exceed 7,000 words, within 21 days of the June 21 order. The order comes despite appellant Sigma Corp. and the U.S. having consented to the move and SCI's claims that good cause existed for the use of more words, given the "voluminous nature of the Government's response brief" (see 2305250032) (Vandewater International v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1093).
The Court of International Trade in a June 22 confidential opinion upheld CBP's finding that a group of companies, led by American Pacific Plywood, evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China. In a letter to litigants, Judge M. Miller Baker gave the parties until June 29 to review the bracketed information in the opinion. In the case, BP said the companies evaded the duties by transshipping their products through Cambodia. The plaintiffs levied a host of due process violation allegations against CBP and said, among other things, the agency carried out an "unceasing attempt to crucify" exporter LB Wood Cambodia (see 2202040037) (American Pacific Plywood v. U.S., CIT # 20-03914).
The Commerce Department in a June 22 brief requested a partial voluntary remand at the Court of International Trade so it can fix a mistake in its decision to grant a byproduct offset for antidumping duty respondent NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Co. The agency said it wanted the chance to review the decision after looking at evidence submitted by petitioner Catfish Farmers of America so that it can "reconsider the narrow issue of potential double counting" with regard to byproduct offsets that NTSF received (Catfish Farmers of America v. U.S., CIT # 20-00105).
A July 13 oral argument related to Judge Pauline Newman's fitness to continue serving on the bench will be closed to the public, a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit special committee ordered this week. In the June 20 order, the committee said that aside from an initial strong presumption of confidentiality in the proceeding, making the hearing public could jeopardize key information.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department continued to find that importer Valeo North America's T-series aluminum sheet falls under the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum sheet from China, in remand results submitted June 20 at the Court of International Trade. After Judge Mark Barnett sent back the decision for exceeding the limits of a (k)(1) analysis and so the agency could address evidence that Valeo's aluminum sheet undergoes heat treatment, Commerce said that Valeo's T-series sheet does not undergo solution heat-treatment and is subject to duties (Valeo North America v. United States, CIT # 21-00581).
Certain claims from conservation groups Sea Shepherd New Zealand and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society may continue despite the fact that the administrative decision they are challenging has expired, the Court of International Trade ruled in a June 21 opinion. Judge Gary Katzmann said that an element of Sea Shepherd's challenge is capable of repetition from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and evading review, allowing a claim seeking declaratory relief to proceed. But because the decision expired, the judge said the prospect of injunctive relief was moot.
A dispute panel at the World Trade Organization ruled this week that China's antidumping duties on stainless steel products from Japan violated global trade commitments. The ruling held a mix of findings for and against Japan's claims, leading each side to claim some form of victory.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade: