In this case, U.S. Customs and Border Protection erroneously liquidated in 2008 a 2004 entry of wooden bedroom furniture from China made by Epoch Design LLC at the China-wide rate of 198.08% rather than the firm’s calculated rate of 6.65%. Epoch, however, failed to file a protest within 90 days1 of liquidation, then failed to pay all liquidated duties prior to initiating a suit (it paid the duties four months after initiating its suit). For both reasons, the Court of International Trade concluded that Epoch’s complaint “must be dismissed.”
In the December 28, 2011 issue of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Bulletin (Vol. 46, No. 1), CBP published a notice that proposes to provide guidance to the trade and revoke a ruling and similar treatment in order to allow transaction value for “related party” sales and post-importation adjustments to be more broadly used.
The Court of International Trade has ruled to dismiss a case in which C.B. Imports Transamerica Corp. sought a refund of a cash deposit it made on an entry of automotive safety glass from China that was subject to an antidumping duty order (A-570-867) at the time of entry. The CIT dismissed the case as it found C.B. Imports' refund claim was made after the statutory two-year limit and thus was time-barred.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection has issued CSMS message #11-000319 stating that it is aware of several issues trade participants are encountering when submitting Importer Security Filing (ISF) data to CBP, in particular with the status notifications. There have been several cases of unsolicited status notifications to trade participants as well as a failure to send S1 bill on file messages where appropriate. CBP is currently working to address these issues. A follow up CSMS message will be issued once a fix has been implemented.
The Court of International Trade has ruled, due to untimely claims, it cannot grant relief to two companies that sought refunds of EU beef hormone dispute duties assessed on merchandise entered after the duties were retroactively terminated. According to the CIT, the companies' complaints were filed more than two years after the action that triggered accrual of their claims -- which was the date CBP liquidated the entries and not the date of the CAFC's 2010 ruling that the retaliatory duties were terminated by operation of law in 2007.
Broker Power is providing readers with some of the top stories for December 12-16, 2011 in case they were missed last week.
The National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America has issued a White Paper on the need for customs brokers to transition to ACE now, saying "it's necessary, it's desirable, and it's urgent." NCBFAA's Board believes that it is no longer a question of whether to migrate to ACE, but when, and states that it is not feasible to wait for ACE to be finished before attempting to use it, nor is it plausible to rely on it being abandoned. While much work remains to be done, CBP has recently begun to show good progress and has adopted essentially all of the recommendations for functional development outlined in the initial NCBFAA White Papers. It is time for the brokerage industry to support that development and accept the inevitable.
The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls has posted an October 28, 2011 version of its frequently asked questions on commodity jurisdiction (CJ) which includes new information on providing supplemental information to an already submitted CJ via e-mail. DDTC has also added a new FAQ on uploading supplemental documents to the DS-4076 submission package.
Best Buy agreed to pay TiVo an undisclosed sum to settle a dispute stemming from a revenue-sharing agreement, TiVo disclosed in an SEC filing. TiVo had overpaid Best Buy under the pact, TiVo said.
The Court of International Trade has ruled in U.S. v. Inner Beauty Int'l (USA) Ltd., that Inner Beauty must pay a civil penalty of $39,549 for filing documents falsely stating that the country of origin of certain entries of women's undergarments was Hong Kong, instead of China. The CIT found Inner Beauty made an inadvertent error and was culpable for negligence because at the time of the entries, such merchandise was subject to an import quota.