The U.S. on Sept. 23 told the Court of International Trade an exporter "confuses statutory schemes" when it claims that past negative antidumping and countervailing duty determinations shield against anti-circumvention findings on the same goods from the same countries. Defending the Commerce Department's circumvention findings of the AD/CVD orders on circular welded carbon quality steel pipes and tubes from China, India and South Korea, the government said exporter SeAH Steel Vina Corp. conflated the criteria for AD/CVD investigations with those for circumvention inquiries (SeAH Steel Vina Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol # 23-00256).

The Court of International Trade held oral argument Sept. 19 in a case alleging that CBP wrongly detained an entry of weight loss dietary supplements for almost a year (Unichem Enterprises v. U.S., CIT # 24-00033).

Importer Nutricia North America told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 18 that the government's claims in a customs suit on the company's medical foods present "several fundamental flaws." Nutricia argued that, despite the government's claim that the products are barred from Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 3004 due to Note 1(a) to chapter 30, the medical foods "easily fall within the terms of heading 3004 as 'medicaments ... for therapeutic uses'" (Nutricia North America v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1436).

An importer of weekly/monthly planners told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 18 that it and the government were in agreement that the Court of International Trade had committed a reversible error by classifying its planners as diaries (Blue Sky The Color of Imagination v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1710).

Importer Cozy Comfort Co. moved on Sept. 17 to exclude the testimony of sales and marketing lecturer Patricia Concannon regarding the tariff classification of The Comfy, a wearable blanket. The motion was issued ahead of a bench trial on the classification of the item (Cozy Comfort Company v. U.S., CIT # 22-00173).

The Commerce Department said on remand at the Court of International Trade that Germany's Konzessionsabgabenverordnung (KAV) program, which exempts from a fee gas and power pipeline companies that sell electricity below a certain price, isn't de facto specific. The fees would otherwise be passed on to consumers. Commerce made the finding on Sept. 17 after being instructed by the trade court to conduct a de facto specificity analysis (BGH Edelstahl Siegen v. U.S., CIT # 21-00080).

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 Sept. 17 sent back the Commerce Department's use of a quarterly cost methodology to analyze exporter Officine Tecnosider's sales during the 2020-21 review of the antidumping duty order on steel plate from Italy to address "shortcomings" in its analysis.

The U.S. “respectfully disagree[d]” with recent Court of International Trade cases that have held that the government cannot hear counterclaims seeking to reclassify products under a new heading. These holdings, it said Sept. 13, go against 28 U.S.C. Section 1583, “its legislative history, and decades of consistent practice immediately following its enactment” (BASF Corp. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 13-00318).

A group of cabinet importers, led by ACProducts, filed a pair of complaints at the Court of International Trade on Sept. 16 contesting the Commerce Department's final scope rulings on wooden cabinets further processed in Vietnam and Malaysia. The six-count complaints contested Commerce's decision to open the inquiries and claimed that the scope rulings expanded the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wooden cabinets from China beyond their plain-language scope to include "semi-finished components" (ACProducts v. United States, CIT #'s 24-00155, -00156).