The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a finding by the Court of International Trade in favor of an International Trade Administration determination that mixed-wax candles imported by Target Corporation from China are “later-developed merchandise” that are legitimately included in the AD order on petroleum wax candles from China.

Nike, Inc. has sued a Customs broker for its role as the "attorney-in-fact" entry filer for the importation of counterfeit branded footwear. Nike seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief from further infringement of Nike’s trademarks, as well as damages, costs, and attorney fees.

Nike, Inc. has sued a Customs broker¹ for its role as the "importer of record" entry filer in the importation of counterfeit branded merchandise. Nike seeks permanent injunctive relief from the counterfeiting, infringing, and dilution of Nike’s trademarks and the false designation of origin. Nike is also seeking monetary damages.

In Michael Simon Design, Inc., Tru 8 d/b/a Arriviste, Inc., and Target Stores (a division of Target Corporation), v. U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of International Trade’s refusal to review a new Chapter 95 note added to the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule by Presidential Proclamation.

On June 17, 2010, the Court of International Trade denied U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s request to reconsider¹ its January 2010 remand decision, which ruled that broker penalties² could not be imposed against UPS Customhouse Brokerage, Inc., as CBP had failed to prove at trial that it had considered all ten 19 CFR 111.1 factors when evaluating whether UPS had maintained responsible supervision and control.

The Court of International Trade (CIT) decided the following antidumping and countervailing duty law determination in the first half of June 2010.

In Pacific Northwest Equipment, Inc., v. U.S., the Court of International Trade ruled that platform containers are free of duty under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8609.00.00, as containers specially designed and equipped for carriage by one or more modes of transport, and not under subheading 7326.90.85 as an article of iron or steel at 2.9% ad valorem.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has dismissed Del Monte’s¹ complaint that the Food and Drug Administration engaged in an unlawful pattern and practice of delay in sampling and inspecting Del Monte’s produce for import to the U.S.

In Dell Products LP, v. U.S., the Court of International Trade agreed with U.S. Customs and Border Protection that secondary batteries were properly considered other storage batteries under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8507.80.80 at 3.4% ad valorem and not duty-free as portable digital automatic data processing machines under HTS 8471.30.00, the classification that applied to the notebook computers with which the batteries were packaged.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) vacated an International Trade Commission (ITC) decision that denied John Deere & Company an exclusion order against imports of European models of its harvesters, and ordered the agency to define what “all or substantially all” means in determining whether Deere’s U.S. sales are mainly of U.S. made products and thus qualify for an ITC exclusion order against unauthorized imports.