Jacob Kopnick

The U.S. and Kevin Ho, owner and director of importer Atria, have agreed to try and resolve a customs penalty action via stipulated judgment and are now working to negotiate a number Ho will pay, the parties said in a Sept. 16 status report. The development comes after Ho pleaded guilty in a parallel criminal proceeding in which he was sentenced to 18 months in prison (United States v. Chu-Chiang "Kevin" Ho, CIT # 19-00038).

A group of cabinet importers, led by ACProducts, filed a pair of complaints at the Court of International Trade on Sept. 16 contesting the Commerce Department's final scope rulings on wooden cabinets further processed in Vietnam and Malaysia. The six-count complaints contested Commerce's decision to open the inquiries and claimed that the scope rulings expanded the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wooden cabinets from China beyond their plain-language scope to include "semi-finished components" (ACProducts v. United States, CIT #'s 24-00155, -00156).

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

Importer Worldwide Distribution dropped its bid to participate in an appeal of an antidumping duty review after failing to file a notice of appeal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had asked the company whether it sought to take part in the case as an appellant, and, if so, what the court's jurisdiction is over such an appeal (Sahamitr Pressure Container v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-2043).

The U.S. on Sept. 13 defended the Commerce Department's remand determination that the Korean government's full allotment of carbon emissions credits to exporter Hyundai Steel Co. is de jure specific. The government said Hyundai's claims that the Court of International Trade already rejected Commerce's reasoning and that the agency ignored the court's questions in the remand were unconvincing (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00029) (Dongkuk Steel Mill Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00032).

Importer New York Mutual Trading dismissed its customs case at the Court of International Trade on Sept. 16. The company brought the suit in 2022 to contest CBP's denial of its protest claiming its frozen shrimp from Vietnam of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 1605.21.1030 had wrongly been assigned the "all others" antidumping duty rate. Counsel for the importer didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (New York Mutual Trading v. U.S., CIT # 22-00293).

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Sept. 13 dismissed a suit from three U.S.-based honey producers related to the alleged import of "fake" honey. Judge Daniel Calabretta held that the honey producers, led by Henry's Bullfrog Bees, failed to include sufficiently specific factual allegations to support their claims that the defendants -- honey importers and distributors -- engaged in fraud (Henry's Bullfrog Bees v. Sunland Trading, E.D. Cal. # 2:21-00582).

U.S. seafood seller Luscious Seafood argued on Sept. 13 that the Commerce Department misinterpreted the statute when it found that the company didn't qualify as a bona fide wholesaler of the domestic like product. As a result of its finding, Commerce found Luscious' request for administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam invalid (Luscious Seafood v. United States, CIT # 24-00069).

Antidumping duty petitioner Daikin America on Sept. 9 opposed the Commerce Department's remand results finding it wasn't feasible for respondent Gujarat Fluorochemicals to report its movement expenses on a transaction-specific basis. Daikin said the agency wrongfully said Gujarat's grade-based allocation was as specific as it could be and didn't cause "inaccuracies and distortions" (Daikin America v. United States, CIT # 22-00122).

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade: