The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 13 order dismissed importer Kuester Systems Mexico's customs case on the classification of the company's motor vehicle parts. The trade court case was a protective filing while the company negotiated with CBP, S. Richard Shostak, counsel for Kuester, said in an email to Trade Law Daily. CBP allowed a related protest, recognizing the importer's claim that the goods qualified for duty-free NAFTA treatment, Shostak said. The CIT suit concerned certain motor vehicle parts classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8708.29.5160 (Kuester Systems Mexico S de RL v. U.S., CIT # 22-00331).

The U.S. will appeal an August Court of International Trade decision finding that the statute of limitations for CBP to collect on customs bonds runs six years from the date of the underlying entry's liquidation and not from the date that CBP demanded payment. Per the notice of appeal, the government will take the suit to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (United States v. American Home Assurance Co., CIT # 20-00175).

The Commerce Department failed to support its use of quarterly costs and failed to provide a rational explanation when it revised the antidumping duty margin for Italian steel exporter Officine Tecnosider to zero percent on remand, Nucor Corporation said in its Oct. 12 remand comments at the Court of Internatinoal Trade (Officine Tecnosider SRL v. United States, CIT # 23-00001).

The government should be ordered to produce unredacted documents for inspection by the judge and be ordered to disclose additional statements not reflecting protected deliberations in a case concerning the classification of intelligent window shade machines, Lutron Electronics said in its Oct. 13 motion to compel at the Court of International Trade. Lutron is seeking information related to former CBP employees and communications regarding decision-making in the classification process. Lutron said it fulfilled its obligation in attempting to resolve the dispute in good faith before filing its motion (Lutron Electronics v. U.S.​​​​, CIT # 22-00264).

Imported electronic bicycles were improperly classified by CBP and would have been excluded from Section 301 duties, Washington-based e-bike importer Arba International (doing business as Ariel Rider E-Bikes) said in its Oct. 13 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Arba International v. U.S., CIT # 23-00215).

The U.S. failed to fulfill its "simple but fundamental obligation to explain itself" in a lawsuit brought by a Chinese printer cartridge maker challenging its addition to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, the company, Ninestar Corp., said in a reply brief supporting its motion for a preliminary injunction against the listing. Ninestar dubbed the government's response to the PI motion a series of "distractions and desperate reaches," including the U.S. claim that the Court of International Trade lacks jurisdiction because a presumptive ban on Ninestar's goods is not an "embargo" (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

The Commerce Department properly dropped its subsidy finding in a countervailing duty investigation for respondent Gujarat Fluorochemicals concerning a 30-year land lease to one of its affiliates, Inox Wind Limited, by India's State Industrial Development Corp., the Court of International Trade ruled in an Oct. 13 opinion. Judge Timothy Stanceu defended his prior remand order in the case, which said that based on Commerce's interpretation of its regulation, the subsidy finding couldn't be legal.

Importer Kuester Systems Mexico on Oct. 12 moved to dismiss its customs case at the Court of International Trade on the classification of its motor vehicle parts. The company brought its suit in December to contest CBP's denial of its protest regarding certain motor vehicle parts classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8708.29.5160. The company said the goods should receive duty-free treatment under the USMCA. Counsel for the importer didn't reply to request for comment (Kuester Systems Mexico S de RL v. U.S., CIT # 22-00331).

The U.S. opposed an expedited briefing schedule from Chinese printer cartridge manufacturer Ninestar Corp. in the company's case against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Ninestar's motion would hold the government's motion to dismiss in abeyance pending resolution of the company's bid for a preliminary injunction. The U.S. said "it is reversible error for the Court to delay consideration of its jurisdiction until after ruling on the motion for a preliminary injunction" (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

The Commerce Department unlawfully miscalculated duty rates and allowed a foreign producer too much leeway in the final results of its first antidumping administrative review of forged steel fluid end blocks from Italy, petitioner Ellwood City Forge Co. said in an Oct. 13 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Ellwood asked the court to remand the case to Commerce for reconsideration (Ellwood City Forge Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00191).