The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Department of Justice on April 23 filed a motion to dismiss Root Sciences' Court of International Trade challenge of CBP's seizure of a shipment of a cannabis crude extract recovery machine. DOJ says that CIT lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate challenges to CBP's seizure of goods, and the relevant federal district court is the proper venue to challenge seizures.

CBP can still collect unpaid antidumping duties on a customs bond despite waiting nearly eight years after the relevant entries liquidated before demanding payment, the Justice Department said in a brief filed April 23. Aegis Security Insurance Co., which acted as surety on 10 entries of fresh garlic from China that was deemed liquidated 2006, says the statute of limitations had expired on the bond by the time CBP billed Aegis for the full continuous bond amount, $50,000, in 2014. “Because a customs bond is a contract, the [Federal Circuit] has held that a cause of action to enforce its obligations accrues when the terms of the bond are breached,” DOJ said. “In this case, the terms of the bond at issue were not breached by Aegis until CBP made a demand for payment against Aegis and Aegis failed to pay the duties within the time required by law.”

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Polyethylene terephthalate sheet exporter OCTAL, Inc. filed a motion April 21 with the Court of International Trade in support of the Department of Justice's move to voluntarily remand an antidumping duty investigation, but called for additional time to for the Commerce Department to reconsider the case. OCTAL says the standard 90-day period of remand is not long enough, arguing Commerce should reopen the record to obtain additional information on the central claim in the lawsuit.

Turkish steel importer Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret filed a lawsuit April 22 in the Court of International Trade, challenging CBP's denial of its refund request for Section 232 duties, claiming that its goods were granted exclusions. Borusan, along with the consignee of the imports Gulf Coast Express Pipeline (GCX), said it was granted exclusions for specialized X70 large diameter welded line pipe that retroactively applied to imports brought in from Turkey in 2018. Two exclusions were granted for the lined pipe for the construction of the GCX pipeline, so Borusan attempted to use the exclusions to retroactively obtain refunds for Section 232 duties paid but was denied by CBP.

The Court of International Trade greenlighted a test case for GoPro to adjudicate multiple claims challenging a CBP classification decision in an April 22 order. Judge Timothy Reif suspended three other cases brought by GoPro challenging CBP's classification of imported camera housings, subject to classification as “cases” under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 4202. The popular camera manufacturer argues the camera housings should instead be classified as “camera parts” under HTS heading 8525.

Wood importer Richmond International Forest Products launched a challenge in the Court of International Trade claiming its imports of hardwood plywood from Cambodia were erroneously deemed to be of Chinese origin by CBP. In an April 21 complaint, RIFP said its imports were improperly hit with antidumping and countervailing duties, Section 301 tariffs, Merchandise Processing Fees and additional Harbor Maintenance Fee. In addition, RIFP claims that CBP's failure to consider what it sees as key evidence violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the importer's Fifth Amendment rights of due process.

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Department of Justice intends to file a counterclaim seeking unpaid duties against an importer challenging the classification of its dried or bleached plant parts, according to a joint status report filed in the case April 21. Though Second Nature originally filed the 19 USC 1581(a) denied protest challenge, DOJ “is now in the process of seeking internal U.S. Government approval to assert counterclaims for underpaid duties on products imported under cover of the subject entries that were previously inaccurately or incompletely described by Plaintiff,” the status report said. Second Nature says it “will not consent to allow [DOJ] to amend its Answer to raise a counterclaim after years of litigation, noting under USCIT Rule 15 leave of Court would be required to allow such an amendment.” Second Nature is challenging classification of the dried or bleached plant parts that are painted, dyed or glittered as not dried or bleached at a 7% duty. If classified as dried or bleached, they would be duty free.