Ball bearings importer Wermex filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade Oct. 29, contesting CBP's reliquidation of its entries after being erroneously covered by injunctions, when the entries should have been deemed liquidated or been liquidated in line with the final results of the relevant AD review.

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

Three Court of International Trade cases filed by Janssen Ortho should be assigned to Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves and stayed, Janssen argued in an Oct. 27 brief at CIT now that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued its opinion in the appeal. In April, the Federal Circuit upheld Choe-Groves' decision that the active pharmaceutical ingredient imported by Janssen in one of its HIV medications was eligible for duty-free treatment (see 2104260034). The API was darunavir ethanolate (Janseen Ortho LLC v. United States, CIT #13-00052, #14-00094, #14-00198).

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

The Court of International Trade issued a confidential opinion on Oct. 29 in a case over an antidumping duty evasion finding from CBP, sustaining in part and remanding in part Customs' final decision. In the Enforce and Protect Act investigation, Diamond Tools Technology was found to have evaded the AD order on diamond sawblades from China. The company then challenged this decision at CIT, arguing against CBP's retroactive application of the Commerce Department's anticurmvention determination to include diamond sawblades from Thailand in the AD order on the sawblades from China, among other things. Diamond Tools also alleged due process violations against the EAPA process (Diamond Tools Technology LLC v. United States, CIT #20-00060).

Importer BASF Corporation filed five complaints at the Court of International Trade on Oct. 28, challenging CBP's tariff classification of three of its vitamins and supplements. For two of the three substances, BASF is seeking classification under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 2936.

Importer TCW Trends resumed litigation in its case filed in 2012 at the Court of International Trade over the rate of duty paid on its men's knit tops and pants imports. Filing a complaint on Oct. 29, TCW said that its tops and pants were made in a Qualifying Industrial Zone in Alexandria, Egypt, making the goods eligible for preferential duty-free treatment under General Note 3(a)(v) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. The entries were liquidated under HTS subheading 6103.43.15 and 6105.20.20. Ultimately, CBP's finding that the merchandise didn't meet the duty-free eligibility requirements under the QIZ program was contrary to law, the complaint said (TCW Trends, Inc. v. United States, CIT #12-00166).

American steel giant U.S. Steel Corp. is seeking a stay in Russia-based steel company NLMK Pennsylvania's challenge to the Commerce Department's Section 232 exclusion denials for its steel entries until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rules on whether U.S. Steel can intervene in related cases. In its Oct. 27 motion at the Court of International Trade, U.S. Steel argued that "it is vital" for it to be able to intervene in the case and "represent its interests in the continued imposition of the Section 232 tariffs -- interests that will not be adequately represented by Defendant in this action" (NLMK Pennsylvania, LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00507).

Importer Target General Merchandise filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade, arguing against CBP's analysis of the composition of its glitter/fabric ballet shoes. Target says the shoes should have been classified under a lower duty tariff provision for footwear with textile bottoms.

Surety insurance provider Aegis Security Agency opposed on Oct. 27 the Department of Justice's bid for further discovery in a case over CBP’s attempt to collect on a bond issued by Aegis eight years after liquidation. Aegis argues that DOJ seeks to expand discovery without meeting the required standard for specificity or regard for the limitations on the scope of discovery in its request (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Company, CIT #20-03628).