Beverly Hills watchmaker Ildico filed two separate complaints with the Court of International Trade on April 28, arguing its imported wristwatches within gold bezels and cases and synthetic sapphires on front and back should be classifiable as wrist watches with precious metal cases of heading 9101, rather than as CBP liquidated them under subheading 9102 as other wrist watches (Ildico Inc. v. U.S., #18-00076, -00136)

Counsel for Jennifer Lam-Quang-Vinh, a customs broker and former senior manager of Global Trade and Customs at Springs Window Fashions, a producer and seller of window coverings, pushed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit to set up a jury trial over whether she was unlawfully fired. During an April 27 oral argument, counsel for Lam continued to make the case that she was illegally let go from her job for expressing her view that the company's window shades imports should be assessed Section 301 China tariffs and that a jury should look at the case (Jennifer Lam-Quang-Vinh v. Springs Window Fashions, W.D. Wis. #21-2665).

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

Importer DSM Nutritional Products moved on April 27 to designate a test case in its tariff classification challenge on beta-carotene products, in a bid to place six other cases under one other action at the Court of International Trade. Five of the other cases were brought by DSM (see 2110270052) and one other by American International Chemical (DSM Nutritional Products v. United States, CIT #17-00136).

The Commerce Department on remand at the Court of International Trade found that antidumping duty review respondent Shandong New Continent Tire accurately reported its U.S. sales prices and affiliated parties. After voluntarily requesting the remand, Commerce said it was able to verify New Continent's U.S. prices and affiliations in the highly redacted remand results (Pirelli Tyre v. U.S., CIT #20-00115).

The U.S. moved for a stay of proceedings in an Enforce and Protect Act contest at the Court of International Trade after CBP found that a covered merchandise referral to the Commerce Department was needed after a voluntary remand request to reconsider its affirmative evasion finding (Fedmet Resources Corporation v. United States, CIT #21-00248).

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted importer JAS Supply's motion to amend its complaint in a spat over a customs broker contract involving a shipment of 19 containers of alcohol wipes from China. Judge Tana Lin said that the amended complaint cured the defects in the original complaint and disagreed with the defendants, Radiant Global Logistics and Radiant Customs Services, that the amendments were futile (JAS Supply v. Radiant Customs Services, W.D. Wash. #2:21-01015).

The Court of International Trade granted steel company NLMK Pennsylvania's request to file a second amended complaint in its challenge to the Commerce Department's denials of the company's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests. The amended complaint tacks on two additional entries that were denied the Section 232 exclusions since they cover the same products. The motion went unopposed from the U.S. (NLMK Pennsylvania LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00507).

Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif denied a motion by importer Cozy Comfort for a conference to consider court-annexed mediation. In an April 26 opposition motion, the government argued that mediation would be inappropriate because there are still facts at issue and that mediation will likely be ineffective as long as the government is opposed. Reif agreed but said Cozy Comfort may renew its motion after discovery has been completed.

A recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion, Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. U.S., supports a group of mattress exporters' Court of International Trade case contesting an antidumping duty investigation on mattresses from Vietnam, the exporters said in an April 25 notice of supplemental authority. In Mid Continent, the Federal Circuit remanded the Commerce Department's decision to use a simple average to calculate the pooled standard deviation when using the Cohen's d test in its differential pricing analysis to target "masked dumping" (see 2204210031). The mattress exporters, led by Ashley Furniture Industries, seek to piggyback on this decision, arguing that it confirms their position that "the use of simple-average standard deviation rather than weighted-average or population standard deviation represents an unreasonable departure from the original intent of the developers of the Cohen’s d formula" (Ashley Furniture Industries v. United States, CIT #21-00283).