In oral argument Sept. 3 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit -- which the case's primary exporter attempted to avoid (see 2408020019 and 2408120039) -- judges clashed with the government over the Commerce Department's decision to assign unallocated costs to overhead, rather than another cost category (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1550).

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 9 rejected importer Katana Racing's renewed motion to dismiss the govenrment's action against it seeking over $5.7 million in unpaid duties on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the trade court's previous dismissal of the case. In her first opinion since being confirmed to the court, Judge Lisa Wang said the U.S. didn't fail to properly identify the "person" liable for the violation, exhaust administrative remedies or bring the case on time (U.S. v. Katana Racing, CIT # 19-00125).

The Commerce Department stuck by its treatment of antidumping duty respondent Assan Aluminyum's raw material costs and hedging revenues on remand at the Court of International Trade in the AD investigation on aluminum foil from Turkey. However, the agency modified Assan's duty drawback adjustment, resulting in a slight uptick in the respondent's AD rate, from 2.28% to 2.3% (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Tiaret v. United States, CIT # 21-00616).

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 5 said a CBP headquarters ruling on see-through pop-up tent "pods" that differed in outcome from a previously decided protest didn't require public notice-and-comment because the protest wasn't a "prior interpretive ruling or decision." Judge Timothy Reif dismissed one of importer Under the Weather's counts in its customs classification case on the pods, finding that the prior protest approval wasn't the result of "considered deliberations," didn't have "prospective effect" and wasn't "interpretive."

Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 4 heard oral argument in a tariff classification case on electrical conduit imported by Shamrock Building Materials. Judges Richard Taranto, Todd Hughes and Tiffany Cunningham asked whether the conduit had an insulating function and whether there is a de minimis amount of insulating material a conduit needs to include to qualify for classification under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8547 (Shamrock Building Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1648).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit during oral argument on Sept. 3 strongly questioned the U.S. in a customs case on whether cookware imports from Meyer Corp. qualify for first sale treatment. Judges Sharon Prost, Todd Hughes and Tiffany Cunningham questioned the government's defense of the Court of International Trade's decision to deny Meyer first sale valuation seemingly based on an adverse inference drawn against the company for its failure to submit its parent company's financial information (Meyer Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1570).

On appeal, the U.S. supported Court of International Trade Judge Jane Restani’s decision that imported weekly/monthly planners were properly classified as “diaries” under heading 4820 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (see 2404100052). The decision subjected the importer to Section 301 tariffs (Blue Sky The Color of Imagination v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1710).

Parties in an antidumping duty case at the Court of International Trade continued their dispute on whether the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo should eliminate any deference shown to the Commerce Department's definition of the term "partners" in 19 U.S.C. Section 1677(33) (Ventura Coastal v. U.S., CIT # 23-00009).

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.

German paper exporter Koehler asked the Court of International Trade on Aug. 30 to certify for immediate appeal its decision allowing service on the company via its U.S. counsel. Koehler said the issue of service in the case is "appropriate for prompt review" by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit since the issue is a novel one for both CIT and CAFC and "entirely separate from the underlying merits of the case" (United States v. Koehler Oberkirch, CIT # 24-00014).