The Commerce Department has released its final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on low speed personal transportation vehicles from China (A-570-176). Cash deposit rates set in this final determination took effect June 23.
On June 23, the FDA posted new and revised versions of the following Import Alerts on the detention without physical examination of:
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., said he would "love" if a provision his committee authored, to end de minimis for all commercial purposes in 2027, would make it into the Senate version of what Republicans call "One Big Beautiful Bill."
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 16-22:
CBP issued the following releases on commercial trade and related matters:
A listing of recent Commerce Department antidumping and countervailing duty messages posted on CBP's website June 23, along with the case number(s) and CBP message number, is provided below. The messages are available by searching for the listed CBP message number at CBP's ADCVD Search page.
CBP created Harmonized System Update 2523 on June 22, containing 21 Automated Broker Interface records and eight Harmonized Tariff Schedule records. HSU 2523 includes Section 232 Additional Derivative Steel adjustments that went into effect June 23 (see 2506200066).
CBP removed the auto-rejection of insufficient manifest cargo description enhancement in the ACE certification environment on June 20, according to a June 24 cargo systems message.
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on June 23 upheld a jury's determination that importer Sigma Corp. is liable under the False Claims Act for lying about whether its imports were subject to antidumping duties. Judges Michelle Friedland and Mark Bennett said no errors of law were made against Sigma and that the federal district court, not the Court of International Trade, had jurisdiction in the case (Island Industries v. Sigma Corp., 9th Cir. # 22-55063).