Importer Strategic Import Supply will appeal an April Court of International Trade ruling that found that the 180-day deadline for CBP protests runs from the date of liquidation, rather than the date CBP received updated assessment instructions from the Commerce Department (see 2104210066). Per a Nov. 11 notice of appeal, Stragetic Import Supply will take its case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The importer challenged CBP's assessment of countervailing duties on its imports of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. Judge Stephen Vaden dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the 180-day protest deadline is not extended even after Commerce amended the rates set in the relevant CV duty administrative review (Acquisition 362, LLC dba Strategic Import Supply v. United States, CIT #20-03762).

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

Importer Guangdong Hongteo Technology Co. filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade, contesting what is the proper classification for its aluminum fuel pump mounts. Hongteo is seeking a more favorable HTS subheading that would lower the duty rate for the mounts and remove the Section 301 China tariff liability from the imports. The entries, in particular, are "six components made chiefly of aluminum, used to mount fuel pumps onto certain automotive spark-ignition internal combustion piston engines" (Guangdong Hongteo Technology Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #20-03776).

Antidumping petitioner American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance voiced its support for the Commerce Department's remand results in Nov.10 comments submitted to the Court of International Trade. After CIT remanded the case to Commerce for its failure to address the concerns of the mandatory respondent, the agency returned with a more thorough backing of its surrogate financial ratio decision that it believes adequately addresses the respondent's concerns (see 2110130053) (The Ancientree Cabinet Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT # 20-00114).

Lawyers for the Department of Justice and Section 301 sample-case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, “in preparation for scheduling oral argument” in the case, have until Nov. 12 to email the Court of International Trade about any “scheduling conflicts that would preclude their attendance at the hearing” in January or February of 2022, an order entered on Nov. 10 said. Akin Gump attorneys for HMTX and Jasco are scheduled to file their final papers with the court on Nov. 15. the Nov. 10 order appeared to dash any possibility oral argument would be held before year-end, as some lawyers involved in the litigation had expected, as an outside chance. Several thousand complaints have been filed in the massive Section 301 litigation since September 2020, all seeking to have the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports declared unlawful and any paid duties refunded with interest (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052).

Importer Eteros Technologies USA could not have imported its motor frame assemblies -- a product deemed "drug paraphernalia" -- since there was no law specifically authorizing Eteros to possess or distribute the drug paraphernalia, the Department of Justice argued in a Nov. 5 brief to the Court of International Trade. Countering Eteros' position that it was allowed to import the drug paraphernalia since it was allowed under state law, DOJ said that Washington state law merely decriminalized the possession of drug paraphernalia but did not explicitly allow its importation (Eteros Technologies USA, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00287).

Apple, Google, Microsoft, Dell and Tesla will avoid a lawsuit alleging the tech giants benefited from child labor in cobalt mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Finding that the plaintiffs -- a group of anonymous individuals -- failed to establish a causal connection between their injuries and the tech companies, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the case, finding a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (John Doe I, et al. v. Apple Inc., et al., D.D.C. #19-03737).

The Court of International Trade should remand the Commerce Department's particular market situation adjustment to an exporter's constructed value, the exporter, Garg Tube Export, argued in a Nov. 8 brief at CIT. Substantial evidence does not support Commerce's evidence of a PMS existing, so the holding should be remanded, Garg Tube said. Though Commerce correctly reversed its PMS adjustment to its sales-below-cost test for some Garg Tube products on a first remand, the agency should not have found a PMS existed at all for Garg Tube, the exporter said.

The Commerce Department further defended its decision to continue relying on facts otherwise available in Nov. 8 comments submitted to the Court of International Trade, despite a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion finding that such reliance on the current data was inappropriate. The plaintiff in the case, Dillinger France, argued that Commerce ignored the Federal Circuit's directive by continuing to rely on the "likely selling prices" in Dillinger France's records rather than the actual cost of production. Commerce responded that the plaintiff failed to submit the actual product-specific costs of producing the non-prime products or the physical characteristics of the non-prime products, leading to no other choice but to use facts otherwise available (Dillinger France S.A. v. United States, CIT #17-00159).

The Court of International Trade granted on Nov. 9 a voluntary remand motion from the Commerce Department to reconsider the terms of an alleged benefit conferred to a countervailing duty review respondent. In particular, Commerce will reconsider a South Korean government program relating to the payments of sewerage fees that allegedly gave respondent Hyundai Steel Co.a countervailable benefit. The case concerns the 2018 CVD administrative review of cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea. Commerce said it wants to reconsider the sewerage fees program since it learned more about the program when conducting the 2019 CVD review of the same goods (see 2111080050). The agency has 90 days to reconsider its position (Hyundai Steel Company v. U.S., CIT #21-00012).