The Court of International Trade on Oct. 15 limited the scope of the testimony that will be offered by two of the government's witnesses in a customs spat on the classification of The Comfy, a wearable blanket imported by Cozy Comfort Co. Judge Stephen Vaden said fashion industry professional Patricia Concannon can testify only on topics related to the "sale, marketing, and merchandising of apparel," and that CBP national import specialist Renee Orsat "may not testify about opinions she formed during the Customs’ classification process."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit gave notice to the U.S. on Oct. 15 that it has failed to respond to exporter La Molisana's notice of oral argument in a case on the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on pasta from Italy. Failure to file this document "may result in dismissal or other action as deemed appropriate by the court," CAFC said in the text order (La Molisana v. United States, CIT # 23-2060).

In response to a U.S. claim that it couldn't move for a motion on its pleadings before issues of fact were settled by discovery (see 2409260061), an importer of tubing for perforating guns said Oct. 15 that it was “impossible” for CBP to find that one of its products should have been classified under a different Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading between the time the importer sought a Section 232 exclusion request and the time it shipped its entry into the country (G&H Diversified Manufacturing v. U.S., CIT # 22-00130).

Another plaintiff in a sprawling case regarding an affirmative circumvention finding for Vietnamese hardwood plywood added its own support Oct. 15 to its side’s second motion for judgment. It said that the unusual circumstances that led the Commerce Department to essentially conduct a review of 57 companies without a mandatory respondent were “the result of its own misguided decisions” (Shelter Forest International Acquisition v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00144).

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 11 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the antidumping duty investigation on polyester textured yarn from Indonesia that slashed exporter PT. Asia Pacific Fibers' AD rate from 26.07% to 9.2%. On remand, Commerce dropped its use of adverse facts available and relied on Asia Pacific's submitted information under protest.

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 15 partially granted importer Cozy Comfort Co.'s motions to exclude the testimony of witnesses offered by the government in a customs classification spat on The Comfy, a wearable blanket. Judge Stephen Vaden said the testimony of fashion industry professional Patricia Concannon should be limited to topics pertaining to the "sale, marketing, and merchandising of apparel," as opposed to the design of The Comfy. The judge also limited the testimony of CBP national import specialist Renee Orsat, ruling that she "may not testify about opinions she formed during the Customs' classification process." In addition, Vaden denied the government's bid to exclude expert testimony from outerwear designer James Crumley, who was offered as a witness by Cozy Comfort. The judge rejected the government's attacks on Crumley's reliability as a witness.

Georgia woman Skeeter-Jo Stoute-Francois filed a motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade on Oct. 14 contesting four questions on the October 2021 customs broker license exam, claiming that the questions "lacked sufficient information" that would have allowed her to make an "informed choice." Stoute-Francois added that some of the questions "unreasonably called for knowledge" that a test taker "would have no reasonable basis to possess" and that CBP "failed to adequately explain its decision to deny" her credit for some of the questions (Skeeter-Jo Stoute-Francois v. U.S., CIT # 24-00046).

A number of Canadian softwood lumber exporters, on one side of a case, and, on the other, defendant-intervenors led by a domestic trade group, filed in total three briefs supporting their respective motions for judgment (see 2404110063) in a case involving the Commerce Department’s alleged misapplication of the transactions disregarded test to increase the costs of a review’s mandatory respondent (Government of Canada v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00187).

A petitioner, a domestic lumber trade group, pushed back against the Commerce Department's ultimate post-remand finding that subsidies received by unaffiliated lumber suppliers were applicable to a few expedited Canadian lumber review respondents, but that those subsidies had no effect on the respondents’ rates. It again alleged that the department had made a “mathematical error” (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. U.S., CIT # 19-00122).