In a test case, Sparks Belting Company, v. U.S., the Court of International Trade ruled that certain “conveyor belts” designed and used for the conveyance of food and other products were properly classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule under 5903.10.20 as plastic coated textile fabrics at 1.7% ad valorem, or as plastic sheets combined with textile materials 3921.90.25 at 5.6% ad valorem.

In BP Products North America Inc., v. U.S., the Court of International Trade ruled that a blended mixture of components known as 93 octane (premium grade) gasoline (“Conv. 93”) was properly classified as gasoline (motor fuel) under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2710.11.15 at 52.5 cents per barrel.

In a test case Honda Of America Mfg., Inc., v. U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of International Trade’s judgment that certain oil bolts containing cross-sectional holes designed to permit brake or transmission fluids to flow through without leaking are properly classified under HTS 7318.15.80 (as other screws…), at 8.5 percent ad valorem duty rate and not as a part or accessory of motor vehicle under HTS 8708 or 8714.

The Court of International Trade and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided the following antidumping and countervailing duty law determinations in the second half of May 2010.

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned decisions by a circuit court and an appeals court, and ruled that the antitrust laws apply to the National Football League and limit its ability to make contracts as a single entity, with potential implications for other national organizations cooperating to market a brand or enforce pricing policies.

In National Fisheries III,¹the Court of International Trade ordered CBP to again reconsider and recalculate the continuous bond requirement for certain importers of shrimp products subject to antidumping duty liability.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has invalidated the International Trade Administration’s use of labor rate data from high-income countries in valuing merchandise imported from less developed non-market economies (NMEs), overturning an ITA regulation that increased dumping rates.

The Court of International Trade and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided the following antidumping and countervailing duty law determinations in the first half of May 2010.

In Hitachi Home Electronics (America), Inc., v. U.S., the Court of International Trade granted Customs’ motion to dismiss an action by Hitachi to challenge the rate of duty on imported plasma flat panel televisions, for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court of International Trade (CIT) and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) decided the following antidumping and countervailing duty law determinations in the first half of April 2010.