The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 1 order dismissed a customs classification spat over footwear brought by importer Ever Union International. Stephen Swindell, deputy clerk at the court, said that the action was previously placed on the customs case management calendar and was not removed at the expiration of the period of time of removal. The dispute was over the appraised value of the merchandise, as the importer claimed first sale appraisal, though CBP refused to reliquidate the footwear at the price paid by the middleman to the manufacturer (Ever Union International v. United States, CIT #18-00183).
The Commerce Department violated the law by simply averaging ocean freight data from Xeneta and Descartes to value ocean freight in a benchmark calculation in a countervailing duty review, respondent Risen Energy Co. argued in a Sept. 1 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Commerce should have used just the Xeneta data since it is the only source that fulfilled the agency's regulatory guidelines for the cost of ocean freight, Risen said. The respondent also railed against Commerce's use of total adverse facts available over Risen's U.S. customers' alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program -- a move repeatedly struck down by the trade court (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00231).
The Court of International Trade should not grant importer Greenlight Organic's and Parambir Singh Aulakh's motion for a certification of an order for an interlocutory appeal in a customs fraud case since the court's decision did not emit a "controlling question of law" to be appealed, the U.S. argued in a Sept. 1 reply brief. The court's opinion denied a motion for judgment since facts were still in dispute, precluding the interlocutory appeal, the U.S. said (United States v. Parambir Singh "Sonny" Aulakh, CIT #17-00031).
The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 2 opinion upheld parts and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's final determination in the countervailing duty investigation on phosphate fertilizers from Russia. In a case contested by respondents PhosAgro Cherepovets and EuroChem and petitioners LLC Industrial Group Phosphorite and The Mosaic Co., Judge Jane Restani found that Commerce erred in adjusting the natural gas benchmark price by adding the relevant 20% VAT and 5% import duty and misapplying its methodology in calculating EuroChem's total sales by relying on a number given by EuroChem that included sales from eight producers and input suppliers to export trading company EuroChem Trading Rus. The judge also sent back Commerce's cut-off date for measuring subsidies in the Russian economy.
The U.S. cannot ignore commercial reality when arguing against the fact that importer Bral Corporation contracted for defect-free merchandise, Bral argued in a Sept. 1 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Bral is seeking to establish a valid claim for an allowance -- a move the U.S. contests by arguing that the importer failed to produce any documents to detail the quantity, sizes or specifications of its imported plywood. Bral said that while this may be true, it's clear from other evidence that Bral developed the specifications for the imports over a significant period that led to the import of its plywood products (Bral Corporation v. United States, CIT #20-00154).
CBP properly denied customs broker license exam test taker Byungmin Chae credit for questions 5, 27 and 33 of the April 2018 customs broker license exam, the U.S. argued in an Aug. 31 reply brief filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. DOJ went through each question, detailing why CBP's answer was the correct one and why Chae's preferred answer was errant (Byungmin Chae v. Janet Yellen, Fed. Cir. #22-2017).
The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 1 order granted the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's motion to voluntarily reconsider its decision to not reinstate an exclusion to the Section 301 duties on water coolers from China. Plaintiff DS Services of America, doing business as Primo Water North America, didn't oppose the motion. USTR said it wanted to reevaluate its decision given Prime Water's charges of the agency's alleged violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and Natural Choice's request to withdraw its opposition to the reinstatement of the exclusion (DS Services of America v. U.S., CIT #22-00157).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 26 order stayed the consideration of the merits of plaintiff Environment One's claims in a case seeking to apply retroactive Section 301 exclusions until the court settles the U.S.'s motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. DOJ moved to stay consideration of Environment One's claim its merchandise falls within the scope of the claimed exclusion, arguing the stay "would advance the interests of justice" and "could render litigation on the nature of plaintiff's imported merchandise to be unnecessary." Judge Mark Barnett agreed (Environment One v. U.S., CIT #22-00124).
The U.S.'s rationale for hitting antidumping respondent Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipes Ind. with adverse facts available -- that the company did not respond to the best of its ability -- is "conclusory, superficial, and unsupported by record evidence," Ajmal argued in an Aug. 26 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The Commerce Department ignored the entire record when denying one of Ajmal's questionnaire submissions and its extension request, and then applying AFA, since COVID-19 restrictions created an "extraordinary circumstance," and justified the late filing, the brief said (Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipes Ind. v. United States, CIT #21-00587).