Consumer Electronics Daily was a Warren News publication.

Trade-Related Court Cases Filed for Week of Sept. 18-24

September 26, 2017 by Brian Feito|Penalties and Courts

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 18-24:

Chemtall Incorporated, on the classification of carboxyamide-function compounds and amide-function compounds of carbonic acid. CBP classified the merchandise under subheading 2924.19.8000 (6.5%). Chemtall says it should have instead been classified under subheading 2924.19.1110 or 2924.19.1150 (both 3.7%). #17-00237. Filed Sept. 18.

BASF Corporation, on the classification of LycoVit 10% and Lutein 5%. CBP classified both compounds under subheading 2106.90.9700 (28.8 ¢/kg + 8.5%). BASF says it should instead classified the Lycovit under subheading 3204.19.3500 (3.1%), 3003.90.0000 (free) or 2106.90.9500 (free) and 9902.24.4100 (free), and the Lutein under subheading 3003.60.8000 (free) or 3003.90.0000 (free)). #17-00238. Filed Sept. 19.

DSM Nutritional Products, on the classification of stabilized vitamin B derivative. CBP classified the merchandise under subheadings 3824.90.28 (6.5%) or 3824.90.92 (5%). DSM says it should have instead been classified under subheading 2936.23.00 (free). #17-00239. Filed Sept. 20.

Irwin Industrial Tool Company, on the classification of hole saw kits. CBP classified the merchandise under subheadings 8207.50.2080 (5%) or 8207.50.6000 (5.2%). DSM says it should have instead been classified under subheading 8202.99.0000 (free). #17-00240. Filed Sept. 20.

RZBC Import & Export Co., Ltd., on the valuation of its imported citric acid. CBP recalculated a new transaction value by deducting the final AD/CV duties assessed on the citric acid from the DDP price. CBP should have used the originally declared entered value as transaction value to determine final AD/CV duty liability, RZBC said. #17-00241. Filed Sept. 21.

​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 Sept. 18-24:

Canadian Solar, Inc.; Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd.; Hefei JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd.; Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd.; Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Limited; and Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc., challenging a CIT decision issued in July upholding the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic products form China (see 1707240047). #17-2577. Opened Sept. 21.