Extensions to CIT Reserve Calendar Period Must Always be Filed 30 Days Prior, Says CIT Judge
All motions to keep a case on the Court of International Trade’s Reserve Calendar must be filed 30 days before expiration of the Reserve Calendar period, even in cases where a litigant is requesting a subsequent extension, said CIT Judge Delissa Ridgway in an opinion issued Oct. 20. The issue came up in a recent decision (here) where Judge Ridgway grudgingly granted an extension to the Reserve Calendar period for Rockwell Automation in a tariff classification case, despite finding Rockwell’s requests were filed late.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The CIT Reserve Calendar is used by importers to challenge a denied CBP protest by the applicable deadline, but wait for the resolution of other cases fitting the same fact pattern so that each denied protest doesn’t have to be challenged individually. Customs protest cases can be put on the Reserve Calendar by filing a summons, rather than a detailed complaint, and stay there for 18 months. After 18 months, the case is either automatically dismissed, or the importer can file a motion to extend the Reserve Calendar period.
CIT Rule 83(d) is clear in requiring the first extension of the 18-month period to be filed 30 days before expiration. But it does not clearly specify a deadline for extensions of the Reserve Calendar period when it has already been extended. In both her Aug. 18 and Oct. 20 decisions in the Rockwell case, Judge Ridgway ruled that, based on the intent of the rule, the 30-day deadline applies in both circumstances. However, she conceded that the rule could be clarified as to how it applies to extensions of extensions, and said the CIT Rules Committee is working on the issue.
(Rockwell Automation, Inc. v. U.S., Slip Op. 14-122, dated 10/20/14, Judge Ridgway)
(Attorney: John Peterson of Neville Peterson for plaintiff Rockwell Automation, Inc.)