The statute of limitations in customs penalties runs from the date of entry, not from the date that the importer directed the violation to be committed, the Court of International Trade said in a March 31 decision that denied a motion to dismiss a fraud case against Florida businessman Zhe "John" Liu (U.S. v. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT # 22-00215).

CBP said that all wooden bedroom furniture imported by Aspects Furniture International was covered merchandise subject to an Enforce and Protect Act investigation despite a scope ruling from the Commerce Department finding that only two of six types of Aspects' furniture was covered merchandise. In remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade on March 27, CBP said the finding was justified due to adverse inferences levied against the importer (Aspects Furniture International v. U.S., CIT # 20-03824).

The Commerce Department didn't adequately address questions raised by countervailing duty respondent Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co. over the agency's use of certain benchmark information for the land program, the Court of International Trade ruled in a March 21 opinion made public March 29. Upholding parts and sending back parts of the 2016-17 administrative review of the CVD order on aluminum foil from China, Judge Timothy Reif said Commerce must reconsider its analysis of the contemporaneity of data it used for the land program benchmark.

The Court of International Trade on March 29 dismissed a lawsuit from cell phone case maker Otter Products seeking interest on customs duty overpayments, finding it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. Judge Claire Kelly held that the Administrative Procedure Act waiver of sovereign immunity only applies to interest on deposits linked with liquidated entries. As a result, there is no specific waiver of immunity related to Otter's claim for interest for its overpayments on tendered prior disclosures "under the no-interest rule," Kelly said.

Antidumping petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for an expedited briefing schedule in a case on the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available due to a 16-minute late submission (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).

Congress intended for subsidies given to "disparate processed agricultural products" to be countervailable under countervailing duty laws, the Coalition for Fair Trade in Ripe Olives argued in a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Responding to arguments from three Spanish olive exporters against the Commerce Department's "substantially dependent finding" in the Spanish olives CVD investigation, the coalition said that Commerce "responsibly interpreted the statutory language broadly" and in line with statutory intent (Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1162).

CBP’s interpretation of the drawback statute and programming of its ACE Drawback Module led to an "absurd" rejection of substitution unused merchandise drawback eligibility for an importer of civil aviation equipment that disregards the basic structure of the tariff schedule, Spirit Aerosystems said in a March 24 motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade (Spirit Aerosystems v. U.S., CIT # 20-00094).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The Supreme Court of the U.S. denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in a broad challenge to President Donald Trump's steel and aluminum tariff action under Section 232.

Commerce made errors in its calculations, choice of data, and use of adverse facts available during the eighth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China, according to four separate motions for judgment filed at the Court of International Trade. The case combined several complaints all challenging aspects of Commerce’s final determination (see 2208300012) (Jinko Solar Import and Export Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00219).