The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 19 - Sept. 4:
Jacob Kopnick
Jacob Kopnick, Associate Editor, is a reporter for Trade Law Daily and its sister publications Export Compliance Daily and International Trade Today. He joined the Warren Communications News team in early 2021 covering a wide range of topics including trade-related court cases and export issues in Europe and Asia. Jacob's background is in trade policy, having spent time with both CSIS and USTR researching international trade and its complexities. Jacob is a graduate of the University of Michigan with a B.A. in Public Policy.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Sept. 6 opinion said that the Court of International Trade was right to dismiss a suit from two importers seeking to retroactively apply Section 301 tariff exclusions, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction since a protest with CBP was not filed. The trade court held that it did not have jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, since the court would have had jurisdiction under Section 1581(a) had the importers, ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings, filed protests with CBP. The Federal Circuit agreed, holding that the true nature of the suit contests CBP's assessment of the duties and not the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's exclusions, necessitating a protest.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of Aug. 15-21 and 22-28:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 8-14:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 1-7:
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 1 order granted a joint motion for stipulated judgment, granting refunds to importer Transpacific Steel for Section 232 steel and aluminum duties paid in error. The importer was originally granted three exclusions with the wrong Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading listed in them. After having its resubmitted exclusion requests denied, Transpacific took to the trade court to seek the exclusions and refunds for the Section 232 duties paid. It received just that following a settlement with the U.S. (Transpacific Steel v. United States, CIT #21-00362).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of July 25-31:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 28 opinion held that CBP timely liquidated or reliquidated 10 entries of wooden bedroom furniture. The court ruled that the first unambiguous indication that an injunction against liquidation had ended came from liquidation instructions from the Commerce Department that were sent within the six months prior to liquidation, making the liquidation of the entries timely.
The country of origin of certain surgical gowns imported by Global Resources International and Santé USA is the Dominican Republic and not the U.S. for the purposes of government procurement, CBP said in a final determination. Since the most important assembly or manufacturing processes in the production of the gowns took place in the Dominican Republic and not the U.S., the country of origin is the Dominican Republic, CBP said. The agency then directed the importers to consult with the relevant government procuring agency to find whether the gowns qualify as "U.S.-made end products" for the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of July 18-24: