Importer Meyer Corporation filed a corrected reply brief in a key case over the use of "first sale" valuation on goods from China after its initial brief was found to not be in compliance with the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's rules. The Federal Circuit said that the contact information for Meyer's lawyers didn't match the information on the individuals' entries of appearance on the docket (see 2201240043). Meyer's lead counsel is John Peterson of Neville Peterson. Meyer's resubmission purportedly fixes this error. The brief came in Meyer's appeal based on a Court of International Trade ruling that held that first sale treatment may not be applicable to non-market economy exports (see 2201190059). Meyer argued in the brief that CIT improperly applied the "dual burden of proof" when it denied the importer first sale valuation on its cookware from China (Meyer Corporation v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1932).

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should uphold a lower court decision that found that CBP's "indirect method" for weighing importer New Image Global's tobacco wraps that included the weight of additives was legally and scientifically valid, the Department of Justice said in a Jan. 27 brief. Replying to New Image's arguments to the contrary, DOJ said that CBP properly interpreted the excise tax statute to include anything added to the tobacco wraps in the weight of the wraps (New Image Global v. United States, Fed. Cir. #19-2444).

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

The Department of Justice's and defendant-intervenor Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood's arguments in favor of CBP's affirmative antidumping duty and countervailing duty evasion finding ignore the procedural rights afforded by the Administrative Procedure Act, plaintiffs American Pacific Plywood and U.S. Global Forest said in a Jan. 24 brief. DOJ and the coalition argue that the plaintiffs are only entitled to what the Enforce and Protect Act statute prescribes, but American Pacific Plywood and U.S. Global Forest said this ignores the plaintiffs' other due process rights (American Pacific Plywood v. U.S., CIT Consol #20-03914).

Nutricia seeks a Court of International Trade judgment overturning CBP's classification of its infant and children food formulas as food preparations of heading 2106, it said in a motion for summary judgment filed Jan. 24 in the hopes of bringing to a close an over 6-year-old test case. The importer says its formulas, intended to treat a variety of diseases and disorders in infants or children, are "medical foods" classifiable as medicaments of heading 3004 and also duty-free under special tariff provisions for articles for the handicapped under subheading 9817.00.96 (Nutricia North America v. United States, CIT #16-00008).

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit sent a case back to the the D.C. U.S. District Court over whether service was properly provided to the Venezuelan government in a case on the expropriation of a French company. The appellate court said that service was not provided to the Attorney General, as required by Venezuelan law, so the case was sent back so that the French company in question, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Europe, has a chance to properly effect service (Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Europe v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, D.C. Cir. #21-7019).

The Commerce Department dropped its finding that a particular market situation existed for the sale of oil country tubular goods in South Korea, lowering the dumping rate for respondent SeAH Steel Corp. from 3.96% to zero percent. Submitting this change to the Court of International Trade via Jan. 24 remand results, Commerce said that although it disagrees with the court that its PMS position isn't backed by enough evidence, it's making the change to comply with court orders (SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT #20-00150).

Home Depot U.S.A. launched a challenge at the Court of International Trade over President Donald Trump's expansion of the Section 232 tariffs onto steel and aluminum "derivative" products, such as steel nails. Building on the early success of the PrimeSource Building Products Inc. v. U.S. case -- currently under appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit -- Home Depot said that the action to impose tariffs on the derivative products violated procedural time limits in the Section 232 statute (Home Depot USA v. United States, CIT #22-00014). In April 2021, CIT struck down the Section 232 duties on derivative goods, finding the president violated his statutory authority (see 2104050049).