The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade has jurisdiction to hear a case over CBP's failure to issue full Section 301 refunds, importer FD Sales Company argued in an Oct. 8 reply brief. Although CBP "approved" the importer's protest covering 60 entries seeking the refunds, FD Sales argued that the protest was effectively denied when CBP failed to fully grant the refunds, thus giving CIT jurisdiction under Section 1581(a) (FD Sales Company, LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00224).
A customs broker exam taker who is appealing his failing score is asking the Court of International Trade to overturn CBP’s denial of credit for seven questions from the April 2018 test. In a brief filed Oct. 1, Byungmin Chae says CBP erroneously graded his customs broker exam, denying him a broker license on its mistaken finding that he did not score 75 percent or higher.
A group of domestic manufacturers and a labor union seek the imposition of new antidumping duties on oil country tubular goods from Argentina, Mexico and Russia, and new countervailing duties on oil country tubular goods from South Korea and Russia, they said in a petition filed with the Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission Oct. 5. Commerce will now decide whether to begin AD/CVD investigations, which could result in the imposition of permanent AD/CV duty orders and the assessment of AD and CV duties on importers.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A customs broker exam taker who is appealing his failing score is asking the Court of International Trade to overturn CBP’s denial of credit for seven questions from the April 2018 test. In a brief filed Oct. 1, Byungmin Chae says CBP erroneously graded his customs broker exam, denying him a broker license on its mistaken finding that he did not score 75 percent or higher.
The Court of International Trade doesn't have jurisdiction over cases in which CBP seized goods, Judge Gary Katzmann ruled in an Oct. 7 order. Instead, jurisdiction in these instances lies exclusively with federal district courts, the judge said. Since the seizure of an import does not deem a product excluded, and thus precludes any protestable event, jurisdiction at CIT is barred for seized goods, the court found.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
There isn't a need to grant an extension of time for the U.S. to respond to the American Apparel and Footwear Association's motion to file an amicus brief in a customs case since the Department of Justice hasn't given a reason why there should be an extension, the association said in an Oct. 6 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Also, AAFA argued, there's no reason the brief should not be accepted, and the defendant hasn't offered any reason it would be.
The Court of International Trade doesn't have jurisdiction over cases in which CBP seized goods, Judge Gary Katzmann ruled in an Oct. 7 order. Instead, jurisdiction in these instances lies exclusively with federal district courts, the judge said. Since the seizure of an import does not deem a product excluded, and thus precludes any protestable event, jurisdiction at CIT is barred for seized goods, the court found.