The Court of International Trade on March 11 granted importer Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co.'s motion to voluntarily dismiss 12 of its customs suits. The voluntary dismissal bid comes after the importer lost a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case on the classification of its textile gloves with a plastic coating on the palm and fingers (see 2312060028). The appellate court said the gloves are classified as gloves under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 6116, not as articles of plastics under heading 3926 (Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co v. U.S., CIT # 16-00036, -00040, -00044, -00149, -00151, -00152, -00153, -00166, 17-00001, -00003, -00004 and -00098).
Honeywell, an importer of chordal, radial and web brake segments used in aircraft wheel and brake assemblies, said in a March 5 motion for judgment that its goods were classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8803 rather than heading 6307, as CBP ruled (Honeywell International Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 17-00256).
Three U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit judges argued against Judge Pauline Newman's claims against her colleagues' investigation into the 96-year-old judge's fitness to continue serving on the bench. After a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia kept some of Newman's constitutional claims alive (see 2402120057), Judges Kimberly Moore, Sharon Prost and Richard Taranto argued that Newman's Fourth Amendment and due process claims both fell flat (Hon. Pauline Newman v. Hon. Kimberly Moore, D.D.C. # 23-01334).
DOJ attorney Tara Hogan submitted a letter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit correcting a statement she made during March 7 oral argument in a countervailing duty case on ripe olives from Spain (Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1162).
Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit during a March 7 oral argument prodded various statutory interpretations of U.S. countervailing duty law as it pertains to finding whether demand for a good is "substantially dependent" on an upstream product for purposes of assigning countervailing duties. If substantial dependence is established, Commerce may attribute subsidies to a raw agricultural grower to a later stage producer.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 7 said that importer RKW Klerks' net wraps products, used in a machine to bale harvested crops, are not "parts" of harvesting machinery under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. Judges Richard Taranto, Raymond Chen and Tiffany Cunningham thus sided with CBP's classification of the products as "warp knit fabric," dutiable at 10% under HTS subheading 6005.39.00.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 7 sustained CBP's classification of importer RKW Klerks' net wrap products used in hay baling machines under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6005.39.00 as "warp knit fabric," dutiable at 10%, instead of the importer's subheading of 8433.90.50, as "parts" of harvesting machinery. Judges Richard Taranto, Raymond Chen and Tiffany Cunningham said the net wraps are not "parts" as defined by the HTS since the wraps have "additional function outside the machine." The court added that a "consumable" item, "like bullets in a gun," isn't solely meant for use within the machine "simply because it is used exclusively by the machine."
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.
The U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Feb. 29 reply brief that exporter Guizhou Tyre offered a "confused rendition of" the Commerce Department's separate rate analysis, equating the presumption of foreign state control with the lower standard from the agency's "substantial evidence requirement." The government said that, contrary to Guizhou Tyre's claims, it's not Commerce's duty to affirmatively show an absence of Chinese state control (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2165).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last week issued guidance on "allowable and unallowble counsel scheduling conflicts" with oral argument sessions, clarifying that the list is non-exhaustive. The guidance said the three key requirements needed for a showing of "good cause" in rescheduling oral arguments are "certainty," in that the "conflict is already scheduled"; "specificity"; and "strong basis," which means the conflict must be for a "strong reason" and can't be easily "resolved or rescheduled."