It's legal for importer Keirton USA to enter marijuana-related drug paraphernalia into Washington state, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Oct. 20 opinion. Building on the trade court's similar Eteros decision, Judge Claire Kelly said Washington's repeal of past restrictions on marijuana-related drug paraphernalia constitutes an authorization of the manufacture, possession and distribution of these goods, so that importing these goods qualifies for the exemption under the Federal Mail Order Drug Paraphernalia Control Act of 1986. Kelly, like Judge Gary Katzmann in the Eteros decision, relied on the Supreme Court case Murphy v. NCAA to construe the definition of "authorization."
CBP's Denial of PSCs Establishes Jurisdiction to Impose Section 232 Exclusions, Appellants Tell CAFC
CBP's denial of plaintiff-appellant Borusan Mannesmann's post summary corrections (PSCs) and administrative refund request constitutes a protestable decision, meaning Borusan had jurisdiction to seek Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions, Borusan and Gulf Coast Express Pipeline argued in an Oct. 17 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appellants also said that Federal Circuit precedent established that CBP's denial of a timely request for a refund of previously paid duties can constitute a protestable decision, and while these precedential opinions do not concern unliquidated entries as is the case with Borusan, there is nothing limiting these decisions (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2097).
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 18 stopped the International Trade Commission from disclosing the business proprietary information (BPI) of a group of plaintiffs led by Amsted Rail Co. Judge Gary Katzmann granted the plaintiffs' move for a temporary restraining order in an action concerning whether the ITC violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the plaintiffs' 5th Amendment due process rights by giving its former lawyer access to its BPI in his new role as counsel to parties with adverse interests to ARC (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States International Trade Commission, CIT #22-00307).
An argument from apellees, including the Solar Energy Industries Association, in a Federal Circuit case that the safeguard statute implicitly limits the president to make "trade-liberalizing" measures relies on a "strained reading of the statutory contest," by placing undue emphasis on the fact that section 2254(b)(1)(B) lets the president find that the domestic industry "has made" a positive adjustment to import competition, the U.S. argued in an Oct. 17 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This position "relies on an illusory distinction between complete and ongoing adjustment," the brief said (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1392).
A complaint in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana against CTIA and numerous cellphone manufacturers -- including Motorola, AT&T Mobility and Cricket Wireless -- over a pastor’s death from brain cancer should be dismissed because it is preempted by federal law, the trade group and companies said in a joint motion Monday in docket 2:21-cv-0092. The plaintiffs have argued the FCC safety certification process is based on inaccurate information provided by cellphone makers, and so shouldn’t preempt the case. Other defendants, such as TIA and Chinese company ZTE, argued Monday in separate filings that the court had no jurisdiction over them.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of Oct. 3-9 and Oct. 10-16:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Advantus Corp. moved to voluntarily dismiss its case seeking to obtain Section 301 tariff refunds at the Court of International Trade. The case was previously stayed pending the appeal of decisions made in two cases, ARP Materials v. U.S. and Harrison Steel Castings Co. v. U.S. In these cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the trade court's ruling that a protest was needed to retroactively apply Section 301 tariff exclusions (see 2209060035). Both the Federal Circuit and CIT said that they did not have the jurisdiction to hear the challenge since the importers did not timely file protests of the CBP liquidations assessing the Section 301 duties (Advantus Corp. v. United States, CIT #21-00055).
The Court of International Trade should stop the International Trade Commission from releasing a group of plaintiffs' business proprietary information (BPI) to its former counsel and his firm, Buchanan Ingersoll, given the former counsel's alleged "betrayal," the plaintiffs, led by Amsted Rail Co. (ARC), argued in an Oct. 14 complaint at the Court of International Trade. By not blocking the release of the BPI, the ITC is violating the Administrative Procedure Act and the plaintiffs' 5th Amendment due process rights, the brief said (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States International Trade Commission, CIT #22-00307).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: