The Court of International Trade on Feb. 22 ruled that Formpack, a flexible packaging material imported by Amcor Flexibles Kreuzlignen, is classifiable as "other" backed aluminum foil, rather than aluminum foil decorated with a pattern or design. Siding with the plaintiff, Judge Gary Katzmann said that Formpack is classified under the duty free subheading 7607.20.50. CBP originally classified the entries under subheading 7607.20.10, which is dutiable at 3.7% and provides for aluminum foil "covered or decorated with a character, design, fancy effect or pattern." Since the text on Formpack is communicative text not decorative, it doesn't belong under CBP's subheading, Amcor successfully argued.
Country of origin cases
The Supreme Court should deny a bid to review the president's authority under the Section 232 national security tariff provision, the U.S. said in a Feb. 17 reply brief. Arguing that greater deference and flexibility are accorded the president in a national security context, the Department of Justice told the nation's highest court that the president lawfully adjusted tariff action under Section 232 beyond procedural timelines. The Supreme Court also previously ruled that Section 232 isn't an improper delegation of authority and the petitioners haven't shown this decision to be wrongly decided, the brief said (Transpacific Steel LLC, et al. v. United States, U.S. #21-721).
The U.S. Court of International Trade should deny the Department of Justice's motion to add a November 2018 investigatory “update” report from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to the administrative record in the Section 301 litigation (see 2202160033) because the government has failed to show that USTR “actually relied on or considered” the report when it was deciding to impose either the Lists 3 or List 4A tariffs on Chinese imports, Akin Gump lawyers for sample-case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products said in a partial opposition brief filed Feb. 16.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an antidumping case brought by Vietnamese exporter Godaco Seafood Joint Stock Co. following the company's motion to voluntarily dismiss the case. Godaco was appealing a Court of International Trade decision affirming the Commerce Department's results of the 2015-16 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on fish fillets from Vietnam, in which the court initially rejected the agency's separate rate calculation. Commerce originally calculated the separate rate by averaging the separate rates from the previous four administrative reviews. The court then upheld the calculation after the agency based the separate rate on more contemporaneous data (see 2109270035). No reason was given for the requested dismissal (Godaco Seafood Joint Stock Company v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1202).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Commerce Department abused its discretion by rejecting filings in antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations that were submitted 21 and 87 minutes late, respectively, the Court of International Trade said in a pair of Feb. 15 decisions. Commerce's denials of the questionnaire responses from a Turkish exporter amounted to a "draconian penalty" on the AD/CVD respondent for an "inadvertent technical error by its counsel that had no appreciable effect" on the investigations, the court said. The result was a 53.65% dumping rate and 158.44% countervailing duty rate for the exporter.
The Commerce Department complied with the Court of International Trade's remand instructions when it found that certain door thresholds qualify for the "finished merchandise" exclusion from the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, the Justice Department said in a pair of Feb. 14 reply briefs. Filing its responses in two separate cases, one brought by Columbia Aluminum Products and the other by Worldwide Door Components, Commerce said that it relied on CIT's rulings to find that the plaintiffs' door thresholds qualified for the finished merchandise exclusion while ignoring prior authorities that established that a subassembly could not qualify for the exclusion (Worldwide Door Components v. United States, CIT #19-00012) (Columbia Aluminum Products v. United States, CIT # 19-00013).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York: