Trade-Related Court Cases Filed April 20-26

April 28, 2020 |Penalties and Courts

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 20-26:

Nexira, Inc., on the classification of acacia gum. CBP classified the merchandise under subheading 1302.39.0090 (3.2%). Nexira says it instead should have been classified under subheading 1301.20.00 (free). #20-00091. Filed April 20.

Duferco Steel, Inc., challenging the temporarily increased 50% Section 232 tariffs on its imports of cold rolled steel sheet in coils. Duferco says the tariffs should be assessed at 25% if CIT declares the increase invalid in a similar, ongoing case (see 1911180013). #20-00092. Filed April 21.

Thyssenkrupp Materials NA Inc., challenging the importer-specific exclusion process for Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum products as unconstitutional. Thyssenkrupp says the exclusions, which, unlike Section 301 exclusions, are only granted to the importer that requested them, violate the “Uniformity Clause” of the Constitution (see 2004230053). #20-00093. Filed April 21.

Spirit AeroSystems, Inc., challenging CBP's denial of its drawback claim on parts of civil aircraft. Spirit says its exported parts classifiable under subheading 8803.30.0030 qualify for unused substitution duty drawback because the 10-digit subheading does not begin with the word “other.” #20-00094. Filed April 21.

GoPro Inc., on the classification of camera housings. CBP classified the merchandise under subheading 4202.99.9000 (20%). GoPro says it instead should have been classified under subheading 8529.90.9086 (free) or 3926.90.9990 (5.3%). #20-00095. Filed April 25.

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 April 20-26:

U.S. government, appealing a Jan. 24 CIT decision that found recent changes to CBP regulations limiting the amount of drawback that can be claimed on excise taxes are invalid because they contradict the legal framework created by Congress for drawback and legislative intent to expand the duty savings program (see 2001270020). #20-1734. Opened April 24.