Importer Cozy Comfort Co. and the U.S. submitted additional briefing ahead of their trial next week at the Court of International Trade on the tariff classification of The Comfy -- a wearable blanket imported by Cozy Comfort (Cozy Comfort Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00173).

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 15 limited the scope of the testimony that will be offered by two of the government's witnesses in a customs spat on the classification of The Comfy, a wearable blanket imported by Cozy Comfort Co. Judge Stephen Vaden said fashion industry professional Patricia Concannon can testify only on topics related to the "sale, marketing, and merchandising of apparel," and that CBP national import specialist Renee Orsat "may not testify about opinions she formed during the Customs’ classification process."

The U.S. on Oct. 15 urged the Court of International Trade to dismiss a suit from importer Retractable Technologies challenging the recent 100% increase of Section 301 tariffs on needles and syringes from China. The government said the trade court lacks jurisdiction to "second-guess the President's findings" and discretion in telling the U.S. trade representative to modify the Section 301 action and that the company failed to state a claim on which relief could be provided (Retractable Technologies v. United States, CIT # 24-00185).

Georgia woman Skeeter-Jo Stoute-Francois filed a motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade on Oct. 14 contesting four questions on the October 2021 customs broker license exam, claiming that the questions "lacked sufficient information" that would have allowed her to make an "informed choice." Stoute-Francois added that some of the questions "unreasonably called for knowledge" that a test taker "would have no reasonable basis to possess" and that CBP "failed to adequately explain its decision to deny" her credit for some of the questions (Skeeter-Jo Stoute-Francois v. U.S., CIT # 24-00046).

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 Commerce Department under protest on Oct. 10 reversed its finding that exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. and one of its customers, BNK Steel Co., are affiliated, on remand at the Court of International Trade. The decision lowered Saha Thai's antidumping duty rate in the 2020-21 review of the AD order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, from 14.74% to 1.65% (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00627).

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 10 sent back the Commerce Department's use of partial adverse facts available against exporter Nippon Steel for its failure to submit sales data from some of its U.S. affiliates in the third review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan. Judge Stephen Vaden said Commerce failed to grapple with Nippon Steel's limitations under Japanese law to collect this data from its affiliates.

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 10 denied German paper exporter Koehler Oberkirch GmbH's bid to immediately appeal a prior decision from the court allowing service to be effected on the company's U.S. counsel. Judge Gary Katzmann said that an interlocutory appeal wouldn't "materially advance" and would actually delay the "ultimate termination of the litigation."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 10 rejected a Canadian lumber exporter’s attempt to challenge the denial of a cash deposit rate under 28 U.S.C. 1581(i), saying the exporter was attempting "to use § 1581(i) to make an end run around the binational panel’s exclusive review."

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 8 sustained the Commerce Department's scope ruling including importer Printing Textiles' "Canvas Banner Matisse" imports within the scope of the antidumping duty order on artist canvas from China. Judge Timothy Stanceu said Commerce's interpretation of one sentence of the order's scope that is ambiguous "was not per se unreasonable."