A direct forming hollow section line or “tube mill" is correctly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. heading 8462 as a machine tool rather than under heading 8455 as a metal-rolling mill, according to a recently released CBP ruling. The ruling came in response to an application for further review of a denied protest filed by Dundee Products.

Liquidation may not be final in cases where CBP is "acting at the behest of another agency," law firm Neville Peterson said in a Sept. 13 blog post commenting on the Court of International Trade's ruling in AM/NS Calvert v. U.S. In that decision, the trade court entries subject to Section 232 steel and aluminum duties may not be final, given that the case contests the applications of product-specific exclusions granted by the Commerce Department and not by CBP (see 2309070037).

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

A direct forming hollow section line or “tube mill" is correctly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. heading 8462 as a machine tool rather than under heading 8455 as a metal-rolling mill, according to a recently released CBP ruling. The ruling came in response to an application for further review of a denied protest filed by Dundee Products.

The Commerce Department must consider evidence on remand regarding the control antidumping duty respondent Shanghai Tainai could have exerted over its suppliers before the agency hits the company with partial adverse facts available, the Court of International Trade ruled. Issuing the Sept. 14 opinion in a case on the 2019-20 review of the AD order on tapered roller bearings from China, Judge Stephen Vaden said Commerce failed to consider the factors set by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in using AFA on a fully cooperative respondent that "lacks the ability to control its suppliers."

The Court of International Trade upheld parts and remanded parts of the Commerce Department's 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China. Judge Stephen Vaden said Commerce "failed to consider the necessary factors" established by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit before it used partial adverse facts available against respondent Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. due to its suppliers' noncompliance. The agency also failed to justify its decision to deduct surcharges Shanghai Tainai included as extra profit in addition to Section 301 duties when calculating U.S. price, Vaden said. However, the judge sustained Commerce's remaining positions, including its insistence that it deduct the Section 301 duties from U.S. price.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of Aug. 28 - Sept. 3 and Sept. 4-10:

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 following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:

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