The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 2-8:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Surety firm American Alternative Insurance Corp. filed a cross-claim in a customs penalty suit brought by the U.S. against importer Repwire, its manager Jose Pigna and the surety. On Dec. 9, American Alternative Insurance told the Court of International Trade that Repwire and Pigna should be compelled to pay the over $13 million penalty and that the company and its manager "are obligated to indemnify" the insurance company for the amount of duties and fees being demanded (United States v. Repwire, CIT # 24-00173).
Glycine producer Deer Park Glycine said Dec. 3 that the Court of International Trade does have jurisdiction under section 1581(c), or alternatively 1581(i), to hear its challenge of the Commerce Department’s rejection of Deer Park’s “duplicative” scope ruling request (Deer Park Glycine v. U.S., CIT # 24-00016).
Importer Incase Design Corp. settled four customs cases on its iPad or tablet covers, securing a 5.3% duty rate for the goods, which were originally assessed at 17.6%. Filing four stipulated judgments at the Court of International Trade, Incase said the U.S. agreed to liquidate the covers under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 3926.90.99 after originally liquidating the goods under subheading 4202.92.90. The importer will receive refunds for excess duties paid on its goods (Incase Design Corp. v. U.S., CIT #'s 14-00102, 14-00299, 15-00144, 16-00026).
The State Department should scale down the International Traffic in Arms Regulations’ brokering reporting rules, which could reduce filing burdens for the defense industry and give the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls more accurate and timely information about ITAR brokering activity, industry officials said this week.
New Zealand conservation non-profit Maui and Hector's Dolphin Defenders NZ challenged the National Marine Fisheries Service's 2024 comparability findings on New Zealand's West Coast North Island set-net and trawl fisheries, alleging a host of analytical and legal violations committed by the agency. The group said the comparability findings fail to enforce the Marine Mammal Protection Act, further endangering the Maui dolphin -- an endangered species of which only an estimated 43 remain (Maui and Hector's Dolphin Defenders v. National Marine Fisheries Service, CIT # 24-00218).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
New Zealand conservation non-profit Maui and Hector's Dolphin Defenders NZ challenged the National Marine Fisheries Service's 2024 comparability findings on New Zealand's West Coast North Island set-net and trawl fisheries, alleging a host of analytical and legal violations committed by the agency. The group said the comparability findings fail to enforce the Marine Mammal Protection Act, further endangering the Maui dolphin -- an endangered species of which only an estimated 43 remain (Maui and Hector's Dolphin Defenders v. National Marine Fisheries Service, CIT # 24-00218).
Anti-forced labor group International Rights Advocates (IRAdvocates) urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to reject the government's request for a two-month delay in filing a reply brief in the group's suit seeking CBP to respond to a withhold release order petition to ban cocoa from Cote d'Ivoire. IRAdvocates claimed that every "major delay in CBP doing its statutory duty to ban the importation of cocoa harvested by child slaves condemns thousands of children to a continuation of the horrible condition they must endure" (International Rights Advocates v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-2316).