Jacob Kopnick

The Court of International Trade on June 4 dismissed a customs classification suit on kids' erasable e-writing tablets from China following importer Kent Displays' notice of dismissal. The notice came after the importer lost a similar case at the trade court, which saw the government prevail in claiming that the tablets fit under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8543, which has a 2.6% duty rate (see 2405090037). In the separate case, Kent was freed from having to pay Section 301 duties on its imports since they didn't cover the tablets at the time of entry (Kent Displays v. United States, CIT # 20-03803).

U.S. importer Water Pik will avoid Section 301 duties on its electromechanical oral hygiene devices from China after arguing that CBP should have classified them under a different Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading (Water Pik v. United States, CIT # 23-00083).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last week set an expedited briefing schedule in TikTok's lawsuit against the bill that could either ban the app in the U.S. or force a sale of the social media company. The schedule says the briefs for TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, and for a group of content creators on the app are due June 20. The government's reply is due July 26, and the final reply briefs for the app and creators is due Aug. 15 (TikTok v. Merrick B. Garland, D.C. Cir. # 24-1113).

Antidumping petitioner Edsal Manufacturing Co. filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on June 4 contesting the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale from India. Edsal said Commerce erred in accepting untimely information from exporter Triune Technofab regarding the calculation of the exporter's constructed value profit (Edsal Manufacturing Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00087).

The Commerce Department stuck by its decision to use India as its primary surrogate country on remand at the Court of International Trade in a case on the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam (Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, CIT Consol. # 20-00105).

Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit appeared skeptical that antidumping duty petitioner Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee could overcome the Court of International Trade's discretionary finding that the petitioner failed to adequately argue that third country sales must be "for consumption" in the third country market when determining normal value (Z.A. Sea Foods v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1469).

Importer Amoena USA Corp. filed a complaint on May 31 at the Court of International Trade contesting CBP's classification of its mastectomy brassieres under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6212.10.90.20, as "other brassieres of manmade fiber," dutiable at 16.9% (Amoena USA Corp. v. United States, CIT # 20-00101).

The U.S. on May 31 opposed U.S. manufacturer Deer Park Glycine's bid to complete the record in a scope ruling case on calcium glycinate by including a scope ruling application from a separate proceeding. The government said a scope ruling application wasn't submitted during "this segment of the administrative proceeding" being challenged at the Court of International Trade, and the Commerce Department didn't "rely on it in reaching its determination not to initiate another scope inquiry regarding a product that had just been the subject of a final scope ruling" (Deer Park Glycine v. United States, CIT # 24-00016).

The Court of International Trade on May 31 sent back some and sustained some of the Commerce Department's surrogate value selections regarding antidumping duty respondent Zhejiang Dingli Machinery Co.'s inputs in the AD investigation on mobile access equipment from China.

The EU General Court on May 29 dismissed a suit from Belarusian Airlines AAT challenging the validity of its 2021 sanctions designation.