The Court of International Trade on Nov. 1 dismissed importer Travelway Group International's customs suit for lack of prosecution. The company put its action on the customs case management calendar but failed to remove it or request an extension before time expired. Travelway brought the suit to argue that its backpacks and bags of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 4202.92.3120 and 4202.92.3131 qualify for Section 301 exclusions. Counsel for the importer didn't respond to a request for comment (Travelway Group International v. United States, CIT # 22-00312).

For the third time, the U.S. supported the Commerce Department’s redetermination on remand in which it refused to look into South Korea’s provision of off-peak electricity at lower prices (see 2304260018) (Nucor Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00182).

A recent Court of International Trade decision is relevant to settle whether the Drug Enforcement Administration is vested with the authority to make admissibility decisions on imports, importer Unichem Enterprises told the trade court on Nov. 1. Filing a notice of supplemental authority, Unichem said the decision, Inspired Ventures v. U.S., also will help resolve whether CBP "usurps the Court's authority when it seizes merchandise for forfeiture that is within the Court's jurisdiction" (UniChem Enterprises v. United States, CIT # 24-00033).

The Commerce Department reasonably used exporter San Shing Fastech Corp.'s financial statements to calculate constructed value profit and selling expenses for respondent Your Standing International in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from Taiwan, the U.S. argued in a response to Your Standing's motion for judgment (Your Standing International v. United States, CIT # 24-00055).

The Commerce Department agreed to remove a prohibition on Red Sun Energy Long An Co. that had blocked the exporter from using the agency's exclusion certification process to enter its solar cells duty-free from Vietnam. The parties filed a stipulation for judgment with the Court of International Trade on Nov. 1, ending Red Sun's challenge to Commerce's anti-circumvention finding on solar cells from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam (Red Sun Energy Long An Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00229).

The U.S. responded Oct. 29 to a garlic importer’s July motion for judgment (see 2407170058) saying that garlic that is boiled, then frozen is subject to antidumping duties on fresh garlic from China (Export Packers Company Limited v. U.S., CIT # 24-00061).

Importer IKKO International Trading on Oct. 29 asked the Court of International Trade for a six-month extension, until April 30, to remain on the case management calendar. The U.S. consented to the move, which comes in a tariff classification suit on sushi ginger. IKKO said the issue is being litigated in another CIT case, Wismettac Asian Foods v. U.S., adding that it's considering asking for a stay in the present action. IKKO said it has taken longer to finalize its approach than anticipated "due to the departure from the undersigned firm of the attorney who previously had primary responsibility for this litigation" (IKKO International Trading v. U.S., CIT # 22-00119).

The U.S. agreed to pay importer Dis Vintage $34,591.27 in duty refunds and interest payments in a tariff classification spat on worn clothing. The parties filed a stipulated judgment with the Court of International Trade on Nov. 1, agreeing to classify the goods under the following five subheadings: 6104.63.20, dutiable at 28.2%; 6309.00.00, free of duty; 6203.20.20, dutiable at 19.7%; 6203.43.40, dutiable at 27.9%; and 6110.30.30, dutiable at 32% (Dis Vintage v. United States, CIT # 23-00033).

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Importer Tingley Rubber Corp. told the Court of International Trade that its latex rubber boot savers should be classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6401.99.30, dutiable at 25%, and not under subheading 6401.92.9000, dutiable at 37.5%. The company filed a complaint on Oct. 31 after initially filing its case in 2020. The company said CBP issued a HQ ruling in 2019 confirming that its boot savers properly fit under subheading 6401.99.30. Tingley's preferred subheading covers footwear that covers the knee and is designed for use without closures. Meanwhile, subheading 6401.92.90 covers other footwear that covers the ankle but not the knee (Tingley Rubber Corp. v. United States, CIT # 20-03711).