Zinc and nylon masonry anchors imported by Simpson Strong-Tie are not covered by antidumping duties on steel nails from China, the Court of International Trade said in a Sept. 21 decision. As it recently did in a separate case involving anchors Commerce had ruled were subject to AD duties on nails from Vietnam (see 1805290053), CIT held that anchors are not commonly considered to be nails, and the inclusion of a nail inside the masonry anchor is irrelevant because the entire anchor should be considered a unitary article of commerce. Unlike nails, which are inserted by impact, masonry anchors are secured by way of a mechanical wedging effect caused by the expansion of the anchor, CIT said. Commerce had in a March 2017 scope ruling found Simpson’s masonry anchors covered by the AD duty order (see 1703280025). That scope ruling was one of several now in question wherein Commerce found masonry anchors are nails (see 1706200062, 1712190067 and 1804030044).

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 24 dismissed a lawsuit from an importer whose Generalized System of Preferences refund request was denied as late, even though the cause was a misunderstanding with the importer’s customs broker. Industrial Chemicals had missed the 180-day deadline to file requests for refunds of duties paid during the GSP lapse of 2013-15. The importer had through a series of emails understood that its broker would request the refunds, and vice versa. After its eventual refund request was denied because it was filed after the deadline, Industrial Chemicals had protested, arguing the issue amounted to a “clerical error, mistake of fact, or other inadvertence.” CBP denied the protest in a ruling issued in November 2017 (see 1711170036). The trade court agreed, finding CBP’s decision was not protestable. The law renewing GSP “clearly states that importers must submit requests for retroactive application of GSP over certain entries by December 28, 2015,” CIT said. “Although Customs makes certain decisions related to the liquidation or reliquidation of merchandise, the plain language of the statute does not appear to give Customs discretion in administering refunds for this particular lapse in GSP,” it said.

Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Stanceau approved on Sept. 19 a request that a three-judge panel hear a constitutional challenge to the Section 232 tariffs. The "action is assigned to a three-judge panel consisting of Judge Claire R. Kelly, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves, and Judge Gary S. Katzmann," the single-sentence order said. The American Institute for International Steel and two companies filed a lawsuit June 27 at CIT over the constitutionality of Section 232 (see 1806270036). The lawsuit sought a three-judge panel because that would allow an appeal to go straight to the Supreme Court.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 10-16:

Michael Brian Anderson was sentenced to 77 months in prison and ordered to pay $818,234 in restitution due to false claims under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Georgia said in a news release. Anderson applied to CBP for subsidies under the CDSOA, also known as the Byrd Amendment, based on fake shrimping business expenses of more than $24 million over a two-year period, the Justice Department said. "Based on Anderson’s fraud, the U.S. government paid Anderson more than $800,000 to which he was not entitled" and "Anderson used those illegally obtained proceeds to purchase boats, stock and real estate," it said. The sentence went beyond the standard guidelines "because of aggravating factors that included Anderson’s perjury during the trial and the number of victims in the case, including the use of a deceased person to further the scheme."

The Court of International Trade declined to grant summary judgments sought by both parties in a lawsuit over the correct classification of Ziploc plastic bags. CIT Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled that "because genuine issues of material fact remain unresolved, the court denies the cross-motions for summary judgment and the case shall proceed to trial." The case involves Ziploc bags imported from Thailand through the Port of Los Angles in 2013. S.C. Johnson & Son, represented by Pisani & Roll, challenged CBP's classification of the bags as “articles for the conveyance or packing of goods” in heading 3923. S.C. Johnson argues that the bags are better classified in heading 3924 as “other household articles.” While CIT denied the summary judgment requests, it declined to address the classification arguments, including whether Generalized System of Preferences benefits apply.

No lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 3-9.

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 6 ruled against several petroleum importers seeking drawback on taxes and fees, finding CBP correctly denied the claims because the importers did not include amounts for merchandise processing fee, harbor maintenance tax and excise taxes. Following precedent set by the Federal Circuit over the past 20 years, CIT said the importers were required to file a complete claim within the three years after export, and that the complete claim must include the full amount of drawback requested.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 27 - Sept. 2:

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 20-26: