Washington state did not simply remove the threat of prosecution over the possession and distribution of marijuana and marijuana "paraphernalia," and in fact legalized it, making importer Keirton USA's import of marijuana "drug paraphernalia" legal, the importer argued in a May 2 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. CBP tried to argue that the importation of such paraphernalia was illegal since Washington merely decriminalized possession of the materials rather than legalizing it. Keirton argued that this is untrue and that CBP admitted as much in a headquarters ruling (Keirton USA v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CIT #21-00452).

The International Trade Commission erred when it found that revocation of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin from Oman would lead to a continuation or recurrence of injury to the domestic PET resin industry within a foreseeable time, Omani exporter OCTAL argued. Filing a complaint at the Court of International Trade May 2, OCTAL argued that the ITC violated the law when it either ignored or failed to adequately address contrary evidence relating to whether the revocation of the orders would lead to injury to the U.S. industry (OCTAL Inc. v. United States, CIT #22-00135).

The Court of International Trade remanded elements of the Commerce Department's administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. In an April 25 opinion made public May 3 submitted in two cases -- one brought by the sole mandatory respondent NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Co. and the other by Catfish Farmers of America, et al. -- Judge M. Miller Baker sent back parts of the review that deal with Commerce's position over whether Indonesia has a comparable level of economic development to Vietnam, whether the Indian factors of production data are the best available as compared to Indonesia, Commerce's failure to engage with contradicting evidence over NTSF's ratio of whole live fish to fillets and the moisture content of NTSF's fillets.

The U.S. defended its expert witness in a customs classification dispute from a motion to remove the witness, Dr. Athanasios Meliopoulos, in a May 2 brief filed at the Court of International Trade. DOJ said that Meliopoulos is "eminently qualified" to give his opinion on a key question in the case -- whether the imported electrical conduit tubing is lined with insulating materials -- and that his testimony is admissible since it is relevant to resolving this key factual dispute in the matter at hand (Shamrock Building Materials v. United States, CIT #20-00074).

The Court of International in a May 2 order granted importer DSM Nutritional Products' consent motion to set up a test case in its customs spat over how to classify beta-carotene products. The motion places six other cases under one action -- five of which were brought by DSM and the other by American International Chemical. All the cases concern the tariff classification of beta-carotene products that CBP placed under HTS subheading 2106.90.99, which provides for "food preparations not elsewhere specific or included," dutiable at 6.4%. The importers argue for the products to be classified under subheading 2936.90.01, which provides for "provitamins," free of duty (DSM Nutritional Products v. United States, CIT #17-00136).

CBP wrongly classified importer Mast Industries' ladies' knitted tops with a built-in shelf bra, Mast argued in a series of complaints on May 2 at the Court of International Trade. CBP liquidated the tops under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6109.10.00, which covers tank tops and similar garments, knitted or crocheted, made of cotton, dutiable at 18.3%, among other subheadings. Mast said that its tops should be classified under subheading 6114.20.00, which provides for other garments, knitted or crocheted, made of cotton, dutiable at 10.8% to 11.1%, among other subheadings. Mast said that its cases were similar to a series of lawsuits filed by Victoria's Secret Direct wherein the court held that "knitted outer garments which provide significant body coverage and bust support are classifiable under heading 6114, HTSUS," the complaints said (Mast Industries v. United States, CIT #01-00859, #02-00198, #02-00199, #02-00200, #03-00428, #03-00714, #03-00879, #04-00274, #05-00025, #07-00112, #07-00159, #10-00053, #10-00227, #11-00024).

The Court of International Trade in a May 2 order rejected Canadian exporter J.D. Irving's bid to establish expedited briefing and consideration of its challenge to the Commerce Department's antidumping duty cash deposit instructions. Judge Timothy Reif said the exporter failed to establish that "good cause" exists to expedite the case since the company's requested relief can be granted even after the deadline to withdraw its request for the fourth review of the AD order on softwood lumber products from Canada.

President Donald Trump's move to expand Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to cover "derivative" products beyond certain procedural timelines was illegal since it was not part of the Section 232 tariffs' original "plan of action," a group of three steel importers argued. Filing a response brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the appellees took into account the Federal Circuit's previous ruling permitting a different tariff action beyond procedural time limits to argue that the expansion onto derivatives was illegal.

The Court of International Trade in an April 25 order made public May 3 remanded parts and sustained parts of the Commerce Department's administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish filets from Vietnam. Writing the opinion for two separate cases -- one brought by the mandatory respondent NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Co. and the other brought by the Catfish Farmers of America -- Judge M. Miller Baker upheld Commerce's positions in the face of NTSF's challenges but remanded elements of the agency's review in the Catfish Farmers' case. The remanded elements include Commerce's conclusion over whether Indonesia has a comparable level of economic development to Vietnam, whether the Indian factors of production data are the best available as compared to Indonesia, Commerce's failure to engage with contracting evidence over NTSF's ration of whole live fish to filets and the moisture content of NTSF's filets.

The Court of International Trade in an April 29 order consolidated two cases challenging CBP's Enforce and Protect Act investigation into the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. The cases, one brought by Kingtom Aluminio, and the other brought by Industrial Feliciano Aluminum, J.L. Trading Corp. and Puertas y Ventanas, contest CBP's position that Kingtom evaded the orders by transshipping aluminum extrusions through the Dominican Republic. Kingtom filed its complaint on April 8, arguing that CBP's position that Kingtom had exports subject to the orders is an abdication of its responsibility to conduct AD/CVD administrative reviews (see 2204110031) (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00072).