Trade-Related Court Cases Filed for Week of Oct. 27 - Nov. 2

November 4, 2014 by Brian Feito|Penalties and Courts

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Oct. 27 - Nov. 2:

Hilltop International and Ocean Duke Corp. challenging the final results of the 2012-13 antidumping duty administrative review on frozen warmwater shrimp from China. #14-00286. Summons filed Oct. 27.

Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon and Fangda Carbon New Material challenging the final results of the 2012-13 antidumping duty administrative review on small diameter from China. #14-00287. Summons filed Oct. 27.

Riddell challenging CBP's denial of its protests on the classification of mini, pocket, and gumball size sports helmets. CBP classified the merchandise under subheading 3926.40.0000 (5.3%). Riddell says it should have instead been classified under subheading 9503.00.0090 (free). #14-00288. Summons filed Oct. 28.

United States seeking penalties under Section 1582 against Jeanette Pacheco. Pacheco was importer of record on a shipment of dried peppers that CBP says were undervalued. Pacheco also allegedly failed to dry peppers after the Food and Drug Administration declared them to be misbranded and refused entry. #14-00289. Complaint filed Oct. 29.

Tyco Fire Products challenging CBP's denial of its protests on the classification of frangible glass bulbs. CBP classified the merchandise under subheadings 9902.24.26 (0.9%) and 7020.00.6000 (5%). Tyco says it should have instead been classified under subheading 8424.90.9080 (free). #14-00290. Summons filed Oct. 30.

Appeals of CIT Decisions

The following appeals of Court of International Trade decisions were filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit during the week of Oct. 27 - Nov. 2:

Carbon Activated Corp. challenging CIT's dismissal of a lawsuit related to CBP’s liquidation of entries subject to antidumping duties (see 14090902). Carbon Activated said the entries were improperly liquidated and should have still been subject to suspension of liquidation. It argued the deadline for filing suit ran from the date it found out about the errant liquidations four years later. But CIT, holding that as an importer Carbon Activated was required to keep tabs on the status of its entries, said the company should have seen the liquidation, filed a protest within 180 days, and challenged the denied protest. With the relevant deadlines long past, CIT found it couldn’t hear the case. #15-1112. Filed Oct. 29.