The Court of International Trade on March 16 refused to accept a second motion to dismiss from Zhe "John" Liu, a defendant in a penalty case, since it "is not a motion provided for by the rules of the court." Judge Jane Restani ruled that Liu's "excuse" for filing the second motion -- that "something signficant" intervened -- "is not well-taken." The trade court instead accepted Liu's first motion to dismiss, and told Liu to make sure future filings align with court rules (United States v. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT # 22-00215).
The Court of International Trade on March 16 referred a customs penalty case to mediation, staying the proceedings until June 30. DOJ alleges Crown Cork & Seal USA misclassified its metal can lid imports, valued at around $51 million, underpaying around $1.3 million in duties between 2004 and 2009. The trade court recently denied Crown Cork's bid to dismiss fraud and gross negligence claims in the case (see 2302280053) (U.S. v. Crown Cork & Seal USA, CIT # 21-00361).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 15 rejected a textile company's expedited motion for a temporary injunction that would have required CBP to return its entries of imported coated fabric to unliquidated status or suspend the company's protests. Judge Evan Wallach said the company, Printing Textiles, doing business as Berger Textiles, "failed to persuade the court of the likelihood that jurisdiction under" Section 1581(a) would be manifestly inadequate, establishing jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), as claimed by Berger (Printing Textiles, dba Berger Textiles v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1576).
The Court of International Trade on March 16 upheld the use of a questionnaire instead of on-site verification in the Commerce Department's countervailing duty investigation on aluminum sheet from Turkey. Judge M. Miller Baker said that Commerce "easily" defeated respondent Teknik Aluminyum Sanayi's challenge because Teknik cited no authority requiring the agency to carry out a certain verification procedure during a global pandemic.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 15 dismissed a case on whether importer Root Sciences' cannabis cure extract recovery machines should be seized as drug paraphernalia after CBP and Root agreed to a settlement (see 2303070060). CBP agreed to release the merchandise to the importer, given the Court of International Trade's ruling in Eteros Technologies USA v. U.S., in which the court said that the U.S. can't seize or forfeit imports that are federally deemed "drug paraphernalia" but whose delivery, possession and manufacture were made legal at the state level (see 2209210034). Root agreed to drop the suit as part of the settlement (Root Sciences v. U.S., Fed Cir. # 22-1795).
Four U.S. steel companies failed to show that they had a right to intervene in a case contesting the International Trade Commission's decision not to review an antidumping injury proceeding on hot-rolled steel imports from Turkey, exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) argued in a March 14 motion. Erdemir said the companies -- Cleveland-Cliffs, Nucor Corp., Steel Dynamics and SSAB Enterprises -- "blurred standards, omitted material facts of cases, and misrepresented the holdings of cases" (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. , CIT # 22-00349).
Exporter China Custom Manufacturing will file a motion for a rehearing and seek en banc review of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision finding the company's solar panel mounts do not qualify for the "finished merchandise" exclusion from the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, George Tuttle, counsel for CCM, told Trade Law Daily (China Custom Manufacturing Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1345).
The Commerce Department can legally deduct President Donald Trump's Section 232 duties from an exporter's U.S. price in antidumping duty proceedings, raising the respondent's dumping margin, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled March 15. Judges Richard Taranto, Kara Stoll and Tiffany Cunningham said Trump's proclamation imposing the duties made clear that the Section 232 tariffs were meant to be added to any applicable antidumping duties. However, the appellate court clarified that this ruling only applies to Trump's Section 232 duties and not all presidential action taken under Section 232.
No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.