iScholar, Inc., an American importer affected by an adverse AD duty rate in the September 2007 - August 2008 AD review of certain lined paper products from India, brought suit against the ITA for its determination that an uncooperative Indian mandatory respondent merited an adverse rate of 72.03%, selected from among the individual transactions of the other mandatory respondent (whose overall rate was only 1.34%). Because Blue Bird (India) Ltd. ceased responding to the agency’s questionnaires in mid-review and the rate chosen by the ITA was based on a sale “within the mainstream” of the cooperating respondent’s sales, the Court of International Trade upheld the agency’s determination. (CIT Slip Op. 11-4, dated January 13, 2011)
The Court of International Trade (CIT) made the following antidumping duty law determinations in the second half of December 2010.
The Court of International Trade has denied a request by U.S. Customs and Border Protection for a stay of its judgment in National Fisheries Institute Inc. v. U.S. V, stating that CBP had not made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits should it bring an appeal.
The Court of International Trade (CIT) and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) made, or made public, the following antidumping and countervailing duty law determinations in the first half of December 2010.
In Roche Vitamins, Inc. v. U.S.,the Court of International Trade denied Roche’s motion for summary judgment on the classification of an imported product called BetaTab20%, because there was still a question as to the principal use of the product.
The Supreme Court’s 4-4 split vote1 in “Costco Wholesale Corporation v. Omega,” on December 13, 2010 effectively affirmed the appeals court’s reversal and remand of the district court’s favorable ruling for Costco on copyright infringement of “gray market” Omega watches.
In Ford Motor Company v. U.S., the Court of International Trade denied Ford’s protest of U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s refusal to refund harbor maintenance taxes1 that Ford allegedly paid on post-July 1, 1990 exports2. The CIT stated that Ford had not provided sufficient supporting documentation in its claim for a refund of the HMT.
On December 13, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 4-4 split decision on an earlier appeals court determination that had ruled against importer, Costco, in a “gray market” copyright infringement case brought by Swiss watchmaker Omega. The Supreme Court "per curiam" ruling was one sentence, stating that "The judgement is affirmed by an equally divided Court."
In Horizon Lines, LLC v. U.S., Horizon challenged a determination by U.S. Customs and Border Protection that certain coatings work performed on its vessel below the waterline is subject to a 50 percent ad valorem duty as a foreign repair under 19 USC 1466(a).1
On December 6, 2010, the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of International Trade’s determination that the government owed Horizon Lines, LLC a refund for duties imposed on certain work performed on the ocean carrier Hawaii while the ship was overseas.