The Court of International Trade on Nov. 14 extended the deadline for interested parties to submit comments on proposed amendments to one of the court's practice rules. Comments that had been due by Nov. 24 now will be accepted through close of business on Dec. 5.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Two importers, SAM HPRP Chemicals, dba SAM Nutrition, and Zak Designs, filed identical complaints at the trade court Nov. 14 challenging President Donald Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose global tariffs (Zak Designs v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CIT # 25-00266) (SAM HPRP Chemicals Inc. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CIT # 25-00267).
The Commerce Department reasonably decided not to attribute subsidies provided to Nur Gemicilik, an affiliated input supplier of countervailing duty respondent Kaptan Demir, to Kaptan itself in the 2018 CVD review on Turkish rebar, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Nov. 17. Judges Raymond Chen, Richard Linn and Todd Hughes said Commerce properly identified that the unprocessed steel scrap Nur provided Kaptan was a "common input" and that the agency didn't place undue weight on consideration of Nur's main business activity.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 17 held that five types of medical foods imported by Nutricia North America are properly classified as "medicaments" and not as "food preparations." Judges Sharon Prost, Richard Taranto and Leonard Stark overruled the Court of International Trade's decision, which came to the opposite conclusion, finding that Nutricia's products are properly found to be medicaments under duty-free Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 3004.50.5040.
The U.S. and an importer of tapered roller bearings said in a Nov. 14 status report that they have reached a settlement agreement. The government brought its case against the importer seeking $97 million for unpaid antidumping duties (United States v. Wanxiang America Corp., CIT # 22-00205).
After the U.S. requested sanctions against a steel wire hanger importer for failing to respond to its complaint (see 2510300049), the importer -- being sued for allegedly dodging duties -- finally filed its amended answer Nov. 14 (United States v. Zhe “John” Liu, CIT # 22-00215, 23-00116, 24-00132).
In a Nov. 14 complaint, a cased pencils importer said CBP wrongly determined its novelty pencils were of Chinese origin and liquidated them at a 114.9% antidumping duty rate, having based its finding on an unrelated company-specific scope ruling (Raymond Geddes & Company v. United States, CIT # 25-00265).
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 12 granted default judgment against importer Rago Tires for negligence in importing tires by not declaring the goods as subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on Chinese truck and bus tires. Judge Joseph Laroski ordered Rago to pay a $14,108.87 penalty.
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 12 held that the deadline for filing a complaint isn't a jurisdictional issue. As a result, Judge Richard Eaton said he had the power to vacate the dismissal of a case from various exporters in an antidumping duty case, which was issued due to the exporters' failure to timely file a complaint.