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).

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).

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).

The U.S. once again filed a motion to dismiss a case brought by an aluminum rod importer that alleged the Commerce Department had denied a Section 232 tariff exclusion request by pointing to promises made by the importer’s domestic competitor. The U.S. called most of the importer’s claims untimely and unactionable (Prysmian Cables and Systems USA v. U.S., CIT # 24-00101).

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 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).

Exporter CVB voluntarily dismissed its appeal on Oct. 29 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury finding on mattresses from various Asian countries (CVB v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1504).

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

In response to a motion for judgment filed by an importer of Mexican rail couplers, the U.S. and a petitioner each said Oct. 25 that the Commerce Department doesn't have to consider conflict of interest claims in antidumping duty investigations. The importer brought a conflict of interest suit against the petitioner in an AD investigation, saying that the petitioner relied on evidence from an attorney it itself had once hired (see 2407160060) (Amsted Rail Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00242).

Responding to a June 20 motion for judgment by an importer of mineral-based countertops, the U.S. said Oct. 28 that the importer’s products were covered by antidumping and countervailing duties on quartz surface products from China that the importer was allegedly attempting to evade (Vanguard Trading Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00253).