Jacob Kopnick

Christopher Skinner, former partner at Williams Mullen, has joined ArentFox as a partner in its international trade and investment practice, the firm announced. Skinner's practice will cover export controls and sanctions compliance as well as customs and import regulations.

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. 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 Commerce Department reasonably placed greater emphasis on research and development investment when it found that solar cells from Cambodia were circumventing the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on solar cells from China, the U.S. said. Filing a reply brief to the Court of International Trade on Oct. 29, the government argued that the agency "set forth uncontroverted record evidence to explain that R&D is particularly important to solar producers" and that these investments are key to "technological breakthroughs in the solar industry" (BYD (H.K.) Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00221).

The Court of International Trade issued a confidential decision on Oct. 31 remanding in part and sustaining in part CBP's finding that importer Scioto Valley Woodworking wasn't evading antidumping and countervailing duties on wooden cabinets from China. Judge Lisa Wang gave the parties until Dec. 2 to review the decision for confidential information. Petitioner American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance brought the suit to ask whether CBP's Office of Rulings and Regulations can reverse evidence-based evasion findings made by CBP's Trade Remedy Law Enforcement Directorate (see 2403120038) (American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance v. U.S., CIT # 23-00140).

German exporter Koehler petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus on Oct. 31 to settle the question of whether the company can be served via its U.S. counsel after the Court of International Trade refused to certify the issue for intermediate appeal. Koehler said the issue of whether CIT rules allow service on a foreign dependent through its U.S. counsel "is a basic, undecided question in this Circuit that is likely to recur" (Koehler Oberkirch GmbH v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-106).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit rejected an argument from a Chinese engineering professor who said his illegal export shouldn't have been subject to national security controls, which made the export subject to a higher base offense (U.S. v. Yi-Chi Shih, 9th Cir. # 23-3718).

Individual importer Timothy Brown filed a complaint on Oct. 31 at the Court of International Trade seeking nearly $20,000 in duty drawback related to the shipment of a Porsch 911 Turbo S luxury vehicle. Brown said he in 2017 imported the vehicle, which was classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8703.24.0190, dutiable at 2.5% (Timothy Brown v. United States, CIT # 20-03733).

The government's interpretation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on drawn stainless steel sinks from China would lead to "absurd" results and would plainly expand the scope of the orders to out-of-scope items, importer R.H. Peterson told the Court of International Trade on Oct. 29 in a reply brief (R.H. Peterson v. United States, CIT # 20-00099).

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).