Seko Logistics will still pursue its lawsuit challenging CBP's suspension of the company from Type 86 filing and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, despite CBP's conditional reinstatement of the customs broker, according to a June 4 statement from the company. The Chicago-area customs broker and freight forwarder says CBP still hasn’t fully provided its reasons for Seko’s initial suspension.
In a Swiss watch classification case ongoing since 2018, the U.S. argued May 30 that the motion for judgment filed by the watches’ importer should be dismissed for lack of proof. Alternatively, it asked its own cross-motion for judgment be granted because the importer’s watches with gold alloy cases don’t fit under its preferred heading, as that heading, which covers watches with cases made of precious metals, specifically excludes gold (Ildico Inc. v. U.S., CIT #s 18-00136, -00076).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Seko Logistics will still pursue its lawsuit challenging CBP's suspension of the company from Type 86 filing and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, despite CBP's conditional reinstatement of the customs broker, according to a June 4 statement from the company. The Chicago-area customs broker and freight forwarder says CBP still hasn’t fully provided its reasons for Seko’s initial suspension.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 27 - June 2:
The U.S. on May 31 opposed U.S. manufacturer Deer Park Glycine's bid to complete the record in a scope ruling case on calcium glycinate by including a scope ruling application from a separate proceeding. The government said a scope ruling application wasn't submitted during "this segment of the administrative proceeding" being challenged at the Court of International Trade, and the Commerce Department didn't "rely on it in reaching its determination not to initiate another scope inquiry regarding a product that had just been the subject of a final scope ruling" (Deer Park Glycine v. United States, CIT # 24-00016).
The U.S. supported its cross-motion for judgment (see 2402160055) against an exporter’s reply (see 2404100071) May 29 in a case regarding the classification of automobile side bars. It again pointed out that the bars are principally used as steps, not side protective attachments, and argued that the plaintiffs weren’t engaging with the merits of the case (Keystone Automotive Operations v. U.S., CIT # 21-00215).
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Court of International Trade on May 31 said that a duty drawback claim becomes deemed liquidated after one year if the underlying import entries are also liquidated and final, with finality defined as the end of the 180-day window in which to file a protest with CBP.