In defense of its motion for summary judgment and opposition to the government’s, an airplane parts importer said Aug. 30 that Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8803, which covers “parts of goods” for aircraft or nonpowered aircraft, is more specific than heading 6307, which represents “other made up articles, including dress patterns” in a fabric section (Honeywell International Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 17-00256).

Importer Solid State Logic voluntarily dismissed its customs suit on its audio production consoles, filing a notice of dismissal on Sept. 5 at the Court of International Trade. The company brought the suit to claim that the entered value of its consoles was overstated. Counsel for Solid State didn't respond to request for comment as to why the case was dismissed (Solid State Logic v. United States, CIT # 22-00310).

The U.S. voluntarily dismissed its appeal of a case initially filed by importer Fraserview Remanufacturing to contest the erroneous deemed liquidation of its goods that were subject to suspended liquidation. The Court of International Trade in the case said Fraserview didn't need a protest to file its suit (see 2401250039). The court said that since the statute for deemed liquidation requires that the entries not be suspended, CBP's notices of deemed liquidation didn't operate to actually liquidate the entries. The U.S. appealed the decision but dropped the matter in a joint stipulation on Sept. 5 (Fraserview Remanufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-2049).

Importer Woodcraft Supply filed a complaint on Sept. 6 at the Court of International Trade seeking refunds on duties overpaid due to CBP's refusal to use "first sale" valuation on the company's woodworking tools and related article imports (Woodcraft Supply v. United States, CIT # 22-00253).

Pistol maker Glock partially opposed a U.S. attempt to amend a scheduling order in a contentious case (see 2408130064) regarding CBP’s failure to deduct royalties from its valuation of a single entry of imported pistol kits. The importer said it agreed to a 60-day extension, but complained that the government “has repeatedly sought and obtained extensions of time to respond to all matters involving deadlines set by this Court’s rules, beginning with the time to file its Answer” (Glock v. U.S., CIT # 23-00046).

A domestic glycine producer said Sept. 3 that it hadn’t needed to exhaust its administrative remedies prior to coming to court because it had never had the chance to seek a remedy in the first place (Deer Park Glycine, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 23-00238).

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 5 issued its mandate in a trio of cases on whether the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 requires payouts of interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest, to affected domestic producers. In July, the court said the Act doesn't require the payment of delinquency interest but only requires payments of interest that's "earned" on antidumping and countervailing duties and "assessed under" the associated AD or CVD order (see 2407150031). The mandate awarded $44.16 in costs to the U.S. (Adee Honey Farms, et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2105) (Hilex Poly Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2106) (American Drew v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2114).

The United Steelworkers labor union brought a case to the Court of International Trade on Sep. 4 arguing that a Commerce Department scope ruling, which excluded a certain type of temporary tire from antidumping duties on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Taiwan, had misunderstood the language of the AD order it had drawn from (United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC v. U.S., CIT # 24-00165).

The International Trade Commission and an exporter of aluminum extruders Aug. 29 each opposed a petitioner’s motion for judgment that claimed the ITC had altered usually reliable data to reach a negligibility finding regarding extrusions from the Dominican Republic. The alteration was both established by law and necessary, they said (U.S. Aluminum Extruders Coalition v. United States, CIT # 23-00270).