Ball bearings importer Wermex filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade Oct. 29, contesting CBP's reliquidation of its entries after being erroneously covered by injunctions, when the entries should have been deemed liquidated or been liquidated in line with the final results of the relevant AD review.
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 29 granted the Commerce Department's request for a voluntary remand in an antidumping duty case, so the agency can review whether it was appropriate to rely on supplemental questionnaire responses, seeing as it couldn't conduct an on-site verification. The court found that Commerce gave enough evidence of "substantial and legitimate" concerns to remand the case and further explore whether the "novel legal approach that Commerce took during the [COVID-19] pandemic" can be properly supported. The court also noted that on-site verification may now be possible given eased travel restrictions (Ellwood City Forge Company, et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00007).
The Commerce Department again dropped its particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test in an antidumping review, despite continuing to find that a PMS existed during the review. Dropping the adjustment in Oct. 29 remand results at the Court of International Trade, Commerce said it fulfilled the terms of its voluntary remand request in the case, explaining that the court ruled in other cases that the agency is not allowed to make such an adjustment when finding normal value (NEXTEEL Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #20-03868).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer TCW Trends resumed litigation in its case filed in 2012 at the Court of International Trade over the rate of duty paid on its men's knit tops and pants imports. Filing a complaint on Oct. 29, TCW said that its tops and pants were made in a Qualifying Industrial Zone in Alexandria, Egypt, making the goods eligible for preferential duty-free treatment under General Note 3(a)(v) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. The entries were liquidated under HTS subheading 6103.43.15 and 6105.20.20. Ultimately, CBP's finding that the merchandise didn't meet the duty-free eligibility requirements under the QIZ program was contrary to law, the complaint said (TCW Trends, Inc. v. United States, CIT #12-00166).
Importer BASF Corporation filed five complaints at the Court of International Trade on Oct. 28, challenging CBP's tariff classification of three of its vitamins and supplements. For two of the three substances, BASF is seeking classification under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 2936.
The Court of International Trade issued a confidential opinion on Oct. 29 in a case over an antidumping duty evasion finding from CBP, sustaining in part and remanding in part Customs' final decision. In the Enforce and Protect Act investigation, Diamond Tools Technology was found to have evaded the AD order on diamond sawblades from China. The company then challenged this decision at CIT, arguing against CBP's retroactive application of the Commerce Department's anticurmvention determination to include diamond sawblades from Thailand in the AD order on the sawblades from China, among other things. Diamond Tools also alleged due process violations against the EAPA process (Diamond Tools Technology LLC v. United States, CIT #20-00060).
Importer Target General Merchandise filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade, arguing against CBP's analysis of the composition of its glitter/fabric ballet shoes. Target says the shoes should have been classified under a lower duty tariff provision for footwear with textile bottoms.
Correction: Superon Schweisstechnik India LTD. challenged CBP's classification of welding wires as subject to Section 232 tariffs (see 2110220070).
Surety insurance provider Aegis Security Agency opposed on Oct. 27 the Department of Justice's bid for further discovery in a case over CBP’s attempt to collect on a bond issued by Aegis eight years after liquidation. Aegis argues that DOJ seeks to expand discovery without meeting the required standard for specificity or regard for the limitations on the scope of discovery in its request (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Company, CIT #20-03628).