Jacob Kopnick

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Engine manufacturing giant Cummins Inc. launched a challenge to CBP's denial of its protest claiming its turbocharger housings qualify for a specific Section 301 tariff exclusion, in a Sept. 15 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The challenge seeks to prove that Cummins' imported "housings" or "covers" that are assembled into turbochargers quality for the compressor housings exclusion laid out by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (Cummins Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00517).

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's final results of the third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from Taiwan, in a Sept. 14 opinion. Chief Judge Mark Barnett found that Commerce's use of mandatory respondent Unicatch Industrial Co.'s above-cost home market sales to calculate normal value was legal, the agency's decision to not include Unicatch's antidumping duty deposits in the company's freight revenues was proper, and that Commerce's move to increase Unicatch's cost of production to account for purchases from an affiliated supplier at less than market value was appropriate.

The Court of International Trade granted the Department of Justice's motion for extension of the time of service in a penalty action against Kevin Ho, the owner and director of importer Atria, in a Sept. 14 order. After being briefed by both Ho and DOJ, Judge Timothy Reif also decided not to quash service even though the U.S. served Ho's counsel with the wrong summons and complaint (United States v. Chu-Chiang “Kevin” Ho, et al., CIT #19-00038).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 14 struck down two Commerce Department scope rulings that found door thresholds are not finished products and therefore within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that Commerce's contention that the door thresholds from Worldwide Door Components and Columbia Aluminum Products were not finished products is contradicted by record evidence, remanding the rulings to the agency for reconsideration.

The Commerce Department's decision to continue applying adverse facts available due to the Chinese government's alleged shortcoming in its questionnaire responses during a countervailing duty investigation runs contrary to a court order from the Court of International Trade, plaintiff Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. said in a Sept. 13 filing. Commerce held that AFA was warranted, in part, because the Chinese government did not fully answer its questions on subsidy programs for synthetic yarn and caustic soda. The court ruled to the contrary, making the continued use of AFA in Commerce's remand results unsupported and contrary to law, the brief said (Yama Ribbons and Bows Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #19-00047).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available when weighing Bosun Tool's country of origin information using a first-in-first-out (FIFO) methodology was justified, Justice Department said in Sept. 13 comments at the Court of International Trade (Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers' Coalition v. United States, CIT #17-00167).

Eteros Technologies USA's challenge of CBP's seizure of its motor frame assemblies seeks to answer a “critical legal question" on the interaction of state and federal marijuana laws, the company said in a motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. CBP seized the assemblies, finding them to meet the federal definition of “drug paraphernalia.” This move set the lines of the case over whether CBP can ignore the authorization exemption for drug paraphernalia where those goods are allowed to be imported and sold in a given state, Eteros said (Eteros Technologies USA, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00287).