The Court of International Trade on July 26 reluctantly declined to reconsider its denial of a constitutional challenge to the requirement that importers pay any duties owed before filing protest denial lawsuits. Despite the “absurdity” of the situation faced by International Custom Products (ICP), the now-defunct importer of white sauce is still required by law to pay $28 million in duties before it can file suit challenging CBP’s reclassification of 13 of its entries, it said.
A proper extension of liquidation cannot be challenged in court before the entry liquidates, said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a decision issued June 24. Only if CBP doesn’t extend liquidation or gives improper notice to the importer can a lawsuit be filed to obtain a court order that says its entries have liquidated, said CAFC as it affirmed the Court of International Trade’s decision that it couldn’t hear a lawsuit related to extensions of liquidation while the entries were under CBP and ICE investigation.
CBP issued a guidance outlining multiple scenarios and the proper procedures for industry to deal with possible port disruptions related to labor contract disputes on the West coast. CBP "in conjunction with trade stakeholders, has established procedures for a possible West coast trade disruption that could cause major delays and diversions of vessel cargo arriving and departing from West coast ports," the agency said. The procedures will only be in effect in the event of a port disruption and CBP will publish notices when they go into effect and when normal processing resumes, it said.
The Commerce Department is delaying its decision on whether to conduct antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China (A-570-016/C-570-017) in order to make sure the duties are supported by the U.S. tire industry. The United Steelworkers (USW) union requested the duties on June 3, and Commerce’s decision on whether the petition met industry support requirements was due June 23 (see 14060402). Commerce is extending that deadline until July 14 so it can poll domestic industry.
The Court of International Trade on June 17 again dismissed a lawsuit brought by Ford on whether reconciliation entries it had filed had deemed liquidated. The court found that Ford’s lawsuit was too late because it was filed over two years after the entries would have deemed liquidated. Ford argued that the two-year statute of limitations should run from when it found out about the issue only two months prior to filing suit, but the court found that Ford should have known the entries hadn’t deemed liquidated when one year came and went after filing the entries without any notice of liquidation from CBP.
The number of Tariff Act Section 337 patent investigations at the International Trade Commission has dropped since a spike in 2011, said an ITC report. The ITC began 69 investigations in 2011, after initiating about 30 in 2009 and nearly 60 in 2010. It began 42 investigations in 2013, up from about 40 in 2012. There is controversy over patent cases brought by “non-practicing entities” that don’t manufacture the product under investigation, said the commission’s report June 10 (http://1.usa.gov/1sm2IjU). But since 2006, only 20 percent of Section 337 complaints were filed by non-manufacturing companies, said the ITC. They succeeded in getting only four exclusion orders banning imports of infringing products, and in all four cases the company developed the technology at issue instead of buying the patent, it said.
The number of Tariff Act Section 337 patent investigations at the International Trade Commission has dropped since a spike in 2011, said an ITC report. The ITC began 69 investigations in 2011, after initiating about 30 in 2009 and nearly 60 in 2010. It began 42 investigations in 2013, up from about 40 in 2012. There is controversy over patent cases brought by “non-practicing entities” that don’t manufacture the product under investigation, said the commission’s report June 10 (http://1.usa.gov/1sm2IjU). But since 2006, only 20 percent of Section 337 complaints were filed by non-manufacturing companies, said the ITC. They succeeded in getting only four exclusion orders banning imports of infringing products, and in all four cases the company developed the technology at issue instead of buying the patent, it said.
The number of Section 337 patent investigations at the International Trade Commission has dropped considerably since a spike in 2011, according to an ITC report issued on June 10. The ITC began 69 investigations in 2011, after initiating about 30 in 2009 and nearly 60 in 2010. In contrast, the ITC began 42 investigations in 2013, up from about 40 in 2012. In its report, the ITC noted the controversy over patent cases brought by “non-practicing entities” that do not manufacture the product under investigation. But a look at the data shows that, since 2006, only 20 percent of Section 337 complaints were filed by non-manufacturing companies, said the ITC. They succeeded in getting only four exclusion orders banning imports of infringing products, and in all four cases the company developed the technology at issue instead of buying the patent, it said.
The International Trade Commission on June 11 stayed a cease and desist order while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit considers whether data transmissions are “articles” that can be imported and can violate Section 337 of the Tariff Act. The ITC had issued the order against ClearCorrect in April, barring the company from transmitting files to the U.S. that it uses to manufacture invisible realignment braces via a 3D printer (see 14040708). The agency had said the transmission of the files over the Internet constitutes importation, and that the files violated patents held by Align Technology. ClearCorrect filed an appeal on May 2. The ITC said it doesn’t usually stay Section 337 remedial orders, but will do so in the case because the issue of whether data is an article that can be imported is an “admittedly difficult question.”
The International Trade Commission stayed a cease-and-desist order Wednesday while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit considers whether data transmissions are “articles” that can be imported and can violate Section 337 of the Tariff Act. The ITC had issued the order against ClearCorrect in April, barring the company from transmitting files to the U.S. that it uses to manufacture invisible realignment braces via a 3D printer. The agency had said the transmission of the files over the Internet constitutes importation, and that the files violated patents held by Align Technology. ClearCorrect filed an appeal on May 2. The ITC said it doesn’t usually stay Section 337 remedial orders, but will do so in the case because the issue of whether data is an article that can be imported is an “admittedly difficult question.”