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 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).

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

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 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 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).

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

Hyundai Steel Co. signed off on the Commerce Department's remand results in an AD review dropping a particular market situation adjustment to Hyundai's cost of production in a sales-below-cost test, in Oct. 12 comments at the Court of International Trade. However, Hyundai, one of the mandatory respondents in the 24th administrative review of the AD duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea, went after Commerce's decision to still hold that a PMS exists for hot-rolled coil -- a key input of the subject merchandise -- even though it dropped the PMS adjustment in the sales-below-cost test. The court held that both the PMS adjustment and the PMS finding itself were unsupported by substantial evidence and contrary to law, Hyundai pointed out (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, CIT Consol. #18-00154).