The Court of International Trade should rule in favor of importer Second Nature in its case challenging CBP classification of its imported dried botanicals, the importer said in a June 14 brief (Second Nature Designs Ltd. v. United States, CIT #17-00271). The importer asked the court for a summary judgment classifying all subject merchandise under subheading 0604.90.30 as dried or bleached, regardless of a subsequent dying and painting process, and reliquidating the entries duty-free.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers filed an amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in a case over whether Japanese manufacturer Sigma Corporation, along with other companies, is guilty of violating the False Claims Act for not paying antidumping duties. The two trade groups argued that businesses that act consistently with a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous regulation lack the "requisite False Claims Act scienter" and that the district court should have said there was no obligation to pay the duties given that the duties are not owed on the imports at issue (Island Industries, et al. v. Sigma Corporation, 9th Cir. # 22-55063).

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

The government may only file counterclaims at the Court of International Trade in cases that involve imported merchandise, NetJets said in a June 8 motion seeking dismissal of a DOJ counterclaim seeking liquidated damages from the company for its failure to collect customs user fees (CUFs) for airline ticket purchases (NetJets Aviation, Inc. v. U.S., CIT #21-00142).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 10 order invited the U.S. to file an amicus brief in a case on whether the Commerce Department can conduct expedited countervailing duty reviews. The plaintiff-appellants, led by Fontaine Inc., filed their opening brief in February, seeking statutory cover for Commerce to perform the expedited reviews (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1021).

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

The Court of International Trade in a confidential June 9 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on biodiesel from Indonesia. In the investigation, Commerce disregarded exporter Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia's home market sales and nearly all of its reported costs due to a particular market situation in Indonesia. The agency said the PMS existed based on a Public Service Obligation program that requires biodiesel producers to sell a certain amount of biodiesel in Indonesia at a market-set price. Commerce also found a PMS for Wilmar's crude palm oil costs based on the Indonesian government's export tax and export levy on CPO, which lowers its cost. In a letter filed about the confidential opinion, Judge Richard Eaton gave the parties until June 16 to review any confidential information (Wilmar Trading Pte Ltd. v. United States, CIT #18-00121).

The Commerce Department in June 9 remand results filed at the Court of International Trade no longer found that a particular market situation existed in India regarding the price of hot-rolled coil. Making the switch under protest, Commerce said that since it found that a PMS no longer exists, the other remanded issues in the case are moot (Garg Tube Export v. United States, CIT #20-00026).

The Court of International Trade should dismiss an importer's lawsuit that improperly challenges CBP assessments of antidumping and countervailing duties rather than the underlying duty calculations done by the Commerce Department, the government said in a June 8 brief. The trade court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because the true nature of importer Rimco's claim is a challenge to the amount of duties determined by Commerce rather than the enforcement by CBP, DOJ said. The protest and subsequent suit are an attempt to "hide its own failure to challenge Commerce's determinations when it had the opportunity" by essentially circumventing administrative avenues for addressing AD/CVD rate calculations, the government said (Rimco v. United States, CIT #21-00537).

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