CBP incorrectly denied protests seeking retroactive refunds of Section 301 duties for entries of furniture parts and boxes imported from China, importer Store Supply Warehouse said in an Aug. 4 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The protested items consisted of nine entries of hardware racks, three entries of jewelry boxes and 10 entries of showcase parts imported through the Port of Savannah (Store Supply Warehouse v. U.S., CIT # 23-00035).
Ben Perkins
Ben Perkins, Assistant Editor, is a reporter with International Trade Today and its sister publications, Trade Law Daily and Export Compliance Daily, where he covers sanctions, court rulings, and other international trade issues. He previously worked as a trade analyst for a Washington D.C. advisory firm. Ben holds a B.A. in English from the University of New Hampshire and an M.A. in International Relations from American University. Ben joined the staff of Warren Communications News in 2022.
Commerce did not have the right to institute an administrative review of an antidumping duty case while the underlying order was provisionally revoked, Goodluck India said during an Aug. 1 oral argument at the Court of International Trade. In response to questions from Judge Gary Katzmann, the central issue in the suit shifted from whether Commerce lawfully ordered liquidation at a rate vacated at the time of entry to whether the agency had the right to start a review of Goodluck while the AD order was provisionally revoked, pending appeal (Goodluck India v. U.S., CIT # 22-00024).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Aug. 4 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Aug. 7 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a case against a United Arab Emirates cigarette filter and tear tape manufacturer following a more than $660,000 settlement agreement with the government for violating U.S. sanctions against North Korea . Essentra FZE Company Limited exported cigarette filter rods to North Korea and did not voluntarily disclose the violations, which the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control said constituted an egregious case (U.S. v. Essentra FZE Company, Dist. D.C. # 20-112).
A recently concluded case at the Court of International Trade was a serious contest between the power of the court and the finality of liquidation, customs lawyer Larry Friedman of Barnes Richardson said in an Aug. 2 blog post. The case at issue was Target v. U.S., in which Target attempted to reverse a reliquidation order on improperly liquidated ironing tables from China (see 2108160028). Reversing the order would "elevate the principle of finality" of liquidation over the power of the trade court, Judge Leo Gordon said in his July opinion (see 2307200049).
The Court of International Trade erred when it signed off on the Commerce Department's refusal to conduct a full administrative review of and apply adverse facts available to exporter Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer despite issuing a questionnaire, importer Repwire and Jin Tiong said in an Aug. 3 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Repwire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1933).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Aug. 4 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department’s duty drawback calculation in its final remand redetermination for an antidumping duty investigation on common alloy aluminum sheet from Turkey, AD respondent Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret (Assan) said in its July 31 response comments (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT # 21-00246).