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).

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

Solar cell exporter Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., along with JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co. and JingAo Solar Co., kicked off their challenge to the final results of the seventh administrative review of the countervailing duty order on crystaline silicone photovoltaic cells from China in an Oct. 27 complaint at the Court of International Trade. JA Solar received the all-others CVD rate, which totaled 19.28%. The companies are challenging the Commerce Department's reliance on adverse facts available related to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program due to Commerce's failure to verify non-use of the program by the respondents' U.S. customers (Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00548).

The Commerce Department's failure to calculate a dumping margin for antidumping review participant Chandan Steel Ltd. and instead base the rate on adverse facts available runs contrary to the law, Chandan argued in an Oct. 23 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The exporter is challenging the final results of the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel flanges from India, covering 2018-19 entries. Chandan said it has standing as a "party to the underlying proceeding," and that the final results should be remanded so Commerce can give Chandan a rate based on its own information (Chandan Steel Limited v. United States, CIT #21-00540).

Importer DSM Nutritional Products, Inc. filed six complaints at the Court of International Trade on Oct. 27 seeking to secure its preferred Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading for its beta-carotene with stabilizers and/or anti-caking agent imports. American International Chemical also filed an identical complaint in its case seeking the same outcome. All six cases are led by Robert Seely of Grunfeld Desiderio.

With too many small packages to inspect, and Instagram and other social media influencers promoting knockoffs, fashion brands are dealing with a challenging environment. But panelists on a Crowell & Moring webinar Oct. 26 called "The Year of the Knockoff" found some reason for hope.

CBP misclassified imports of certain inflatable swimming pool floats and lounges, importer Swimways Corporation said in an Oct. 22 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Arguing against CBP's classification, Swimways leaned on a case it won at CIT in 2018 favoring its preferred Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading for the pool floats (Swimways Corporation v. United States, CIT #13-00397).

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

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 25 reversed the dismissals of multiple tariff classification lawsuits over LED lamps after counsel for the plaintiffs argued that the events that resulted in the dismissals constituted "excusable neglect." Judge Leo Gordon ordered that the 10 dismissed cases be restored to the Customs Case Management Calendar (Target General Merchandise, Inc. v. United States, CIT #14-00283).

The Commerce Department filed Oct. 25 for a voluntary remand of a Section 232 exclusion case with the consent of the counsel for the plaintiff, importer CPW America Co., at the Court of International Trade. Finding that the remand would expedite the case's resolution, Commerce said that because the case involves only one exclusion request, the agency would be able to reconsider the exclusion within the standard 90-day remand period (CPW America Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00335).