Jacob Kopnick

Swiss computer peripheral and software company Logitech won its tariff classification challenge in the Court of International Trade, getting duty-free treatment for its webcams and ConferenceCams, per an Aug. 24 decision. Senior Judge Leo Gordon ruled that the webcams fit under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8517, as argued by Logitech, as opposed to heading 8525, dutiable at 2.1%, as suggested by the government. Finding that the products in dispute fall under both headings, Gordon said the duty-free heading describes the goods “with a greater degree of accuracy and certainty.”

Steel importer Transpacific Steel, along with several Turkish steel makers, wants a full court rehearing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of a panel decision to uphold President Donald Trump's Section 232 tariff hike on Turkish steel. In an Aug. 23 petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, Transpacific argued that the panel's majority failed to impose the congressionally mandated limitations to the president's power in Section 232. Further, the majority improperly rejected the plaintiff appellees' equal protection claims, the petition said (Transpacific Steel LLC, et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #20-2157).

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

The Department of Justice, in an antidumping case in the Court of International Trade initially filed by Fine Furniture (Shanghai), requested CIT sustain the Commerce Department's remand results, in Aug. 24 comments. The case stems from an antidumping duty administrative review on multilayered wood flooring from China. Following multiple court decisions and remand results (see 2107130080), Fine Furniture's case was stayed pending a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision, which eventually found that Fine Furniture is not subject to the antidumping duty order. Since the mandatory respondents in the underlying AD duty order received de minimis rates in Commerce's final determination, Fine Furniture was removed from the review. This led to the AD duty rate for all separate rate respondents falling to zero percent (Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, et al. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #14-00135). Most recently, the plaintiffs all signed off on the remand results, leaving no party to challenge the redetermination and nothing further to resolve in the litigation (see 2108110023).

Plaintiff Nucor Corporation mischaracterized, oversimplified and took the Commerce Department's remand results out of context in its comments on a submission in a case stemming from the agency's countervailing duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea, the Department of Justice said in Aug. 18 comments at the Court of International Trade, backing the remand redetermination. DOJ continued to back Commerce's contention that the South Korean government did not provide a countervailable subsidy to producers of hot-rolled steel through cheap electricity. Contrary to what Nucor's comments assert, Commerce adhered to the statute when completing its less-than-adequate remuneration analysis in the CVD case and properly accounted for the Korean Power Exchange's role in the electricity market, DOJ said (POSCO, et al. v. U.S., CIT #16-00227).

The Commerce Department properly used the expected method in an antidumping duty administrative review when it averaged two adverse facts available rates to apply to the non-individually examined respondents, the Department of Justice argued in an Aug. 16 filing at the Court of International Trade. Due to a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision, Albemarle Corp. & Subsidiaries v. United States, which held that the antidumping duty rate for mandatory respondents should be found to be representative unless enough evidence shows otherwise, Commerce properly used the expected method to find the non-individually examined respondents' rate, it said (PrimeSource Building Products, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03911).

A penalty action against the owner and director of importer Atria, Kevin Ho, should not be dismissed even though the U.S. served his counsel with the wrong summons and complaint, the Department of Justice said in an Aug. 17 reply brief. Rather, the court should grant the DOJ's motion to expand Ho's time of service, allow Ho to stipulate to his liability in line with his guilty plea in a related criminal case, grant DOJ's motion to consolidate the two actions against Ho and stay the consolidated matter until Ho serves his prison sentence, the brief said (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 U.S. partially opposed Ashley Furniture Industries' motion for an open-ended statutory injunction against the liquidation of its mattress imports, saying that the injunction should only run to the end of the first antidumping administrative review period. Making its case in the Court of International Trade, the U.S. said that Ashley failed to show that it will suffer immediate and irreparable harm for its mattress entries made after April 30, 2022 -- the date that "corresponds to the end of the period of review for the first administrative review" (Ashley Furniture Industries, LLC, et al. v. U.S., CIT #21-00283).

CBP cannot limit the amount of drawback that can be claimed on excise taxes, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in an Aug. 23 opinion upholding the Court of International Trade's ruling. Holding that the CBP regulation defied the "clear intent of Congress," the appellate court ruled against the government appeal of CIT's decision, providing a win for the plaintiffs, the National Association of Manufacturers and The Beer Institute.