Representatives from a group of LECs met with FCC officials to make their case on an intercarrier compensation fight (see 1505190056) between LECs and interexchange carriers (IXCs) over “intraMTA” (major trading area) wireline-wireless traffic. The meeting focused on the petition for declaratory ruling and reply comments filed by the LEC coalition in the proceeding, said a filing posted Friday in docket 10-90. The FCC’s intraMTA rule “entitles wireless carriers to enter into reciprocal compensation arrangements for the exchange of LEC-CMRS [Commercial Mobile Radio Services] traffic but has no application to traffic exchanged between LECs and interexchange carriers over switched access trunks,” the LECs said. “We emphasized that the ‘intraMTA’ nature of traffic is not -- and never has been -- the sole factor in determining the type of compensation owed when it is exchanged by carriers.” The LECs said the relief they seek “would be consistent with longstanding industry practice, Commission and judicial precedent, and the public interest.” The LECs included Bright House Networks, CenturyLink, Cox Communications, Time Warner Cable and Windstream; BHN and TWC are being bought by Charter Communications.
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 20 denied a motion from the government to collect penalties for negligent misclassification from an importer that appears to have gone out of business (here). Following the company’s prior disclosure that it had misclassified entries of medical scrubs, Selecta had filed a prior disclosure and paid CBP over $800,000 in unpaid duties. The government then brought a penalty action under 19 USC 1592, seeking to collect a civil penalty of $51,102. By then Selecta had disappeared, so CIT declared the company to be in “default,” meaning the court had to accept all of the government’s arguments to be true, provided they are sound. However, in its complaint, the government alleged only that Selecta had made “material false statements” that “constituted negligent violations” of Section 1592 “because Selecta failed to exercise reasonable care.” The complaint lacked “specific, well-pled facts” to convince the court that a negligent violation of Section 1592 had occurred, said CIT. As such, the court denied the government’s motion, and gave it 60 days to fix its complaint before the case is dismissed.
Agreements conceding victory to importers in classification court cases do not necessarily bind CBP when liquidating future entries of the same merchandise, said the agency in a recent ruling. In ruling HQ H236655 (here), CBP told Bioriginal Food & Science Corp. that, despite a stipulated judgment that settled a classification case in Bioriginal’s favor in 2009, the agency is free to continue to classify subsequent entries of the importer’s evening primrose oil capsules in the heading that Bioriginal had originally challenged.
Post-liquidation interest on unpaid duties is subject to the same protest procedures as the duties themselves, said the Court of International Trade on Aug. 19 as it found surety American Home Assurance Company (AHAC) liable for interest on an importer’s unpaid antidumping duties in a recovery case brought by the government. Because AHAC did not challenge denied protests related to CBP’s demands for payment, it is barred from raising legal arguments against CBP’s collection of the interest, said CIT.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug 10-16:
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Aug. 10-14 in case they were missed.
Trade associations and groups representing both sides in a federal appeals case that hinges on whether the International Trade Commission has jurisdiction to block transmission of digital information into the country think the outcome could have lasting implications on digital trade and international data transmission, representatives of those factions told us.
Trade associations and groups representing both sides in a federal appeals case that hinges on whether the International Trade Commission has jurisdiction to block transmission of digital information into the country think the outcome could have lasting implications on digital trade and international data transmission, representatives of those factions told us.
Trade associations and groups representing both sides in a federal appeals case that hinges on whether the International Trade Commission has jurisdiction to block transmission of digital information into the country think the outcome could have lasting implications on digital trade and international data transmission, representatives of those factions told us.
Trade associations and groups representing both sides in a federal appeals case that hinges on whether the International Trade Commission has jurisdiction to block transmission of digital information into the country think the outcome could have lasting implications on digital trade and international data transmission, representatives of those factions told us.