The Court of International Trade granted a preliminary injunction against the liquidation of Chinese exporter Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co.'s wood cabinet and vanity entries, in an Oct. 18 order. Although Meisen filed for the PI after the 30-day period to move for an injunction, the court accepted its PI bid since the exporter showed good cause as to why the delay was necessary (Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co., Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #20-00110).

The Commerce Department fixed an error in its liquidation instructions related to an antidumping duty review in its Oct. 15 remand results at the Court of International Trade. The remand was voluntarily requested by Commerce after it identified the error in the liquidation restrictions (Optima Steel International, LLC, et al. v. U.S., CIT #21-00327).

Taiwanese manufacturer Innolux Corporation launched its case against CBP's classification of the company's shipments of Hewlett-Packard 25-inch monitors, in an Oct. 15 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The case was originally filed in 2013 but placed on the reserve calendar, with counsel for Innolux filing for extensions of time to remain on the reserve calendar beginning in December 2014 (Innolux Corporation v. United States, CIT #13-00272).

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

Consolidated plaintiff, defendant-intervenor and Canadian lumber company Fontaine will appeal an August Court of International Trade opinion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, it said in an Oct. 15 notice of appeal. The decision vacated a Commerce Department regulation establishing expedited reviews for countervailing duty investigations (see 2108190002). Following four opinions from CIT, the trade court eventually found that it could not find any statutory basis for the regulations. Another consolidated plaintiff and defendant-intervenor, Mobilier Rustique (Beauce) Inc., has appealed the decision (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations, et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #19-00122).

Electric scooters, known has hoverboards, were assessed duties under the wrong Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading upon entry into the U.S., importer 3BTech said in an Oct. 15 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Kicking off litigation in its customs battle, 3BTech argued that even if CBP's HTS subheading of choice is correct, the products were granted Section 301 China tariff exclusions (3BTech, Inc. v. United States, CIT #20-00159).

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

The Court of International Trade granted in part, and denied in part, the Department of Justice's motion to extend the discovery period in a customs classification dispute, in an Oct. 14 order. Ordering the parties to consult on potentially extending the discovery period to allow the U.S. to depose an expert witness at a time convenient to both parties, Judge Timothy Stanceu struck a compromise between DOJ's desire to take the deposition and the plaintiffs' claims that an extended discovery period would prejudice it.

The Commerce Department switched to finding the all-others rate in an antidumping duty review using a weighted average of the respondents' rates rather than a simple average, in Oct. 13 remand results at the Court of International Trade. Still defending its use of the simple average in other hypothetical circumstances, Commerce nevertheless made the switch to weighted average, using CBP entry data for one of the respondents (Pro-Team Coil Nail Enterprise, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #18-00027).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on Oct. 14 in a case affirming the Court of International Trade's rejection of excise tax drawback regulations. The Aug. 23 opinion held that CBP cannot limit the amount of drawback that can be claimed on excise taxes, finding that the CBP regulation defied the "clear intent of Congress" (see 2108230036). The decision struck down a 2018 rule that was issued as part of a broader overhaul of drawback regulations following the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (The National Association of Manufacturers, et al. v. Department of the Treasury, et al., CIT #19-00053).