Action camera maker GoPro Inc.'s camera housings are camera parts and not cases, the Court of International Trade ruled Dec. 28, allowing them to enter the U.S. duty-free.

The U.S. and surety company Aegis Security Insurance Co. both wrote to the Court of International Trade following an oral argument to give notice of their intent to redact information from the proceeding's transcript. The government said it intends to redact the identity of the surety firm for the single transaction bonds at issue in the customs penalty suit, while Aegis said it is looking to redact the amount of the bonds issued by Hartford Insurance Co., the amount of CBP's demand on Hartford and the amount of CBP's demand on Aegis (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 20-03628).

Each party to a conflict involving a raw Argentinian honey antidumping duty investigation on Dec. 22 accused the opposing side of misunderstanding the case before the court (Nexco v. United States, CIT # 22-00203).

The International Trade Commission should have continued its 2023 injury investigation of aluminum extrusion imports from the Dominican Republic, not ruled the imports were “negligible,” domestic petitioners argued Dec. 22 at the Court of International Trade (U.S. Aluminum Extruders Coalition v. United States, CIT # 23-00270).

The Court of International Trade need not be bound by the a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling that said Section 232 duties are "United States import duties" that can be deducted from U.S. price, exporter Nippon Steel Corp. argued in a Dec. 22 reply brief (Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT # 21-00533).

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 28 said action camera-maker GoPro's imports of eight camera housing models are properly classified under the company's proffered Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading of 8529.90.86, free of duty. This subheading provides for "[p]arts suitable for use solely or principally with the apparatus" of heading 8525. Judge Timothy Reif spent the bulk of the opinion discussing how the camera housings do not fit under the heading Customs used, 4202, which carries a 20% duty rate. Reif said the housings are not "cases" because they don't require the user to remove, modify or open to access the camera and because the housings boost the camera's functionality.

The International Trade Comission is required by law to reconsider its original 2016 injury and negligibility determinations in a 2021 sunset review of an antidumping duty order on Turkish hot-rolled steel, an exporter argued Dec. 21 (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT # 22-00351).

The Court of International Trade "should not entertain" importer Greentech Energy Solution's challenge to CBP's extension of the liquidation deadline for the 19 entries at issue since it doesn't appear in Greentech's amended complaint, the U.S. argued. Filing a reply brief Dec. 22, the government said that even if the claim was in the complaint, the trade court doesn't have jurisdiction to hear it since Greentech should have filed a protest with CBP to first challenge the decision (Greentech Energy Solutions v. United States, CIT # 23-00118).

DOJ’s admission that an importer’s monthly calendars and desk calendars were classifiable as “calendars” meant that the company’s weekly calendars, which had the same features, also should be classified as such, an organizational tools importer said (Blue Sky The Color of Imagination, LLC v. United States, CIT # 21-00624).

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.