The Court of International Trade on Sept. 3 dismissed a customs case from importer Dover Street Market NY for lack of prosecution. The court said that because the case wasn't removed from the customs case management calendar at the "expiration of the applicable period of time of removal," the case is dismissed for failure to prosecute. The importer brought the suit in August 2021 to challenge CBP's denial of its duty drawback claims (Dover Street Market NY LLC v. U.S., CIT # 21-00420).
An importer of stainless steel sinks from China filed its motion for judgment in a case it brought in 2020 challenging CBP’s assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties on the entire declared value of its products despite “express instructions” to do otherwise (R.H. Peterson v. U.S., CIT # 20-00099).
The International Trade Commission and an exporter of aluminum extruders Aug. 29 each opposed a petitioner’s motion for judgment that claimed the ITC had altered usually reliable data to reach a negligibility finding regarding extrusions from the Dominican Republic. The alteration was both established by law and necessary, they said (U.S. Aluminum Extruders Coalition v. United States, CIT # 23-00270).
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).
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 5 held that a CBP HQ ruling on see-through pop-up tent "pods" wasn't subject to notice and comment requirements because a prior protest approval on the goods wasn't a "prior interpretive ruling or decision." Judge Timothy Reif said the protest approval wasn't the result of "considered deliberations" because CBP's Regulations and Rulings office wasn't involved, and that the decision didn't have "prospective effect" and wasn't "interpretive."
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).
Southwest Airlines argued at the Court of International Trade that the U.S. violated the rules of statutory interpretation when it claimed that the airline isn't entitled to keep Customs Passenger Processing Fees paid by its customers on canceled tickets. Southwest said it "harmonizes" all the sections of the governing statute, 19 U.S.C. Section 58c, while the U.S. reads the law's collection provision in a way that isolates it from the rest of the statute (Southwest Airlines v. U.S, CIT # 22-00141).
The U.S. again argued that Byungmin Chae's case at the Court of International Trade challenging one question on his customs broker license exam should be dismissed under the doctrine of res judicata, which calls for the dismissal of cases already settled by the court. The Nebraska resident filed suit after his previous case, which he took all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, saw him fall just one question shy of a passing grade on the April 2018 exam (see 2401230031) (Byungmin Chae v. U.S., CIT # 24-00086).
A Chinese exporter of multilayered wood flooring argued Aug. 29 that its 16 input suppliers weren’t under government control. The government policies in question didn’t contradict a Chinese government claim that party officials didn’t hold any ownership positions in a number of input suppliers, it said (Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00136).
A Chinese exporter of multilayered wood flooring argued Aug. 29 that its 16 input suppliers weren’t under government control. The government policies in question didn’t contradict a Chinese government claim that party officials didn’t hold any ownership positions in a number of input suppliers, it said (Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00136).