CBP incorrectly denied U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement eligibility to jewelry imported by AAA Jewelers, the importer said in a complaint filed May 9 with the Court of International Trade. AAA Jewelers says its 21-karat and 22-karat gold jewelry pieces were manufactured in Oman and should qualify as Omani originating goods because the total value of materials produced plus the direct costs aren't less than 35% of the appraised value of the goods at the time of entry into the U.S. as required by General Note 31. AAA Jewelers said that the non-originating gold and copper are substantially transformed three separate times in Oman. The first transformation occurs when the 24-karat bars are alloyed with copper to reduce the gold content down to 21- and 22-karat gold, then again when the gold alloy is further processed and manufactured into gold wire, castings and stampings, and finally when the wire, castings and stampings are turned into the finished jewelry.

The U.S., so far, has failed to appear in an appeal from a group of U.S. welded pipe manufacturers over whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test in antidumping duty cases. Per a May 6 order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, since the U.S. has not entered an appearance, absent objection, the court will designate Turkish exporter Borusan Mannesmann as "plaintiff-appellee" and remove the appellee designation for the U.S. (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1502).

The Court of International Trade should dismiss a case led by exporter Zhejiang Yuhua Timber Co. challenging the Commerce Department's decision to deny a scope ruling request, the U.S. argued in a May 6 reply brief. Responding to Yuhua's arguments attempting to establish jurisdiction under Section 1581(c), and in the alternative, Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, DOJ argued that the decision to not start a scope inquiry is not a reviewable decision under Section 1581(c) (Zhejiang Yuhua Timber Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00502).

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

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

The Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations should not be allowed to intervene in GreenFirst Forest Products' case contesting the Commerce Department's decision not to start a changed circumstances review, Greenfirst argued in an April 29 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The intervention bid should be tossed since the committee ignores the action that is currently before the court and is arguing against a case that doesn't exist, the brief said (GreenFirst Forest Products Inc. v. United States, CIT #22-00097).

The Court of International Trade didn't and couldn't take away the Commerce Department's statutory authority to use facts available over the content of countervailing duty review respondent Celik Halat's questionnaire response once the agency accepted it, three defendant-intervenors argued in a May 5 reply brief. Celik Halat's responses were deficient over its reported use of the General Investment Incentive Scheme (GIIS) Customs Duty Exemption Program, warranting partial adverse facts available, the brief said (Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi v. U.S., CIT #21-00050).

Three Chinese exporters -- Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Ind. Co., Shandong Dongyue Chemical Co. and Huantai Dongyue International Trade Co. -- filed a complaint on May 4 at the Court of International Trade to contest the antidumping duty investigation on pentafluoroethane (R-125) from China. The nine-count complaint airs out the exporters' issues with alleged ministerial errors committed in the investigation that led to a large 277.95% dumping margin for the exporters (Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Ind. Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00103).

Judge Mark Barnett, chief judge at the Court of International Trade, reassigned 14 customs cases from Judge Thomas Aquilino to Judge Timothy Stanceu, in a May 5 order. The cases were brought by importer Mast Industries and challenge the classification of ladies' knitted tops with a built-in shelf bra (see 2205020058) (Mast Industries v. United States, CIT #01-00859, #02-00198, #02-00199, #02-00200, #03-00428, #03-00714, #03-00879, #04-00274, #05-00025, #07-00112, #07-00159, #10-00053, #10-00227, #11-00024).

The Court of International Trade should disregard the government's motion to dismiss steel importer Rimco's challenge to the antidumping and countervailing duties it paid, Rimco argued in a May 4 reply brief. Since the importer's case is really a constitutional challenge over excessive fines, Rimco argued that it properly filed its action as a response to CBP's assessment of the AD/CVD rather than the Commerce Department's calculations of the duties (Rimco v. United States, CIT #21-00537).