The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 6-12:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of Feb. 20-26 and Feb. 27 - March 5:
The U.S. and importer Root Sciences struck a settlement in a case on whether Root's cannabis crude extract recovery machine imports should be seized as "drug paraphernalia," the importer said in a March 7 brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Under the settlement, CBP will release the merchandise to the plaintiff and Root will end its suit, according to the consent motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal (Root Sciences v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1795).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 13-19:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 6-12:
Meyer Corp.'s imports of cookware do not qualify for first-sale treatment, the Court of International Trade held in a Feb. 9 opinion. After ruling against Meyer's bid for a retrial in the opinion, Judge Thomas Aquilino said that, because the court doesn't know the extent to which parent company Meyer Holdings had the ability to influence the price paid for the goods sold between affiliates, due to the company's failure to submit its financial information, the use of first sale was not supported.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 30 - Feb. 5:
The Court of International Trade held oral arguments on Feb. 7 in the massive litigation over the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs. During the nearly two-hour affair, Judges Mark Barnett, Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves probed the parties' positions on whether the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative complied with the Administrative Procedure Act by properly considering comments made on the proposed tariffs when imposing the duties on $500 billion of Chinese goods (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT # 21-00052).
President Donald Trump legally expanded the Section 232 national security tariffs to include steel and aluminum "derivative" products despite implementing the expansion beyond procedural deadlines laid out in the statute, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a Feb. 7 opinion. Relying on the appellate court's opinion in Transpacific Steel v. U.S., in which the court said that the president can adjust the tariffs beyond these time limits if it relates to the original plan of action laid out in the initial Section 232 tariff action, the Federal Circuit said that the expansion of the tariffs was related to the original plan.
A protest of a CBP decision must be filed within 180 days of liquidation and not the date the Commerce Department issues antidumping and countervailing duty instructions to CBP or the date CBP denies an importer's refund request, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in a Feb. 6 opinion. Upholding a Court of International Trade decision, judges Timothy Dyk, Richard Taranto and Todd Hughes dismissed a case from importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, that challenges a CBP assessment of countervailing duties, on the grounds that the company failed to file a protest.