The New York Supreme Court should order Charter Communications to “promptly produce all redacted and withheld NCTA communications that do not relate to pending or anticipated litigation,” New York Assistant Attorney General Marc Montgomery wrote the court Monday in case 450318/2017. The AG is seeking communications between Charter and NCTA for the state’s lawsuit against the MVPD about advertised internet speeds. The ISP raised concerns about attorney-client privilege (see 1808160068). The company hasn’t cited any New York legal precedent, relying instead on outside cases, Montgomery said. Deny the AG’s request, Charter said Friday, filing examples of its communications for in camera review. The examples “confirm that Charter’s privilege designations applicable to selected communications involving NCTA and other trade associations’ counsel were reasonable and proper,” Charter said.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 17-23:
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 24 dismissed a lawsuit from an importer whose Generalized System of Preferences refund request was denied as late, even though the cause was a misunderstanding with the importer’s customs broker. Industrial Chemicals had missed the 180-day deadline to file requests for refunds of duties paid during the GSP lapse of 2013-15. The importer had through a series of emails understood that its broker would request the refunds, and vice versa. After its eventual refund request was denied because it was filed after the deadline, Industrial Chemicals had protested, arguing the issue amounted to a “clerical error, mistake of fact, or other inadvertence.” CBP denied the protest in a ruling issued in November 2017 (see 1711170036). The trade court agreed, finding CBP’s decision was not protestable. The law renewing GSP “clearly states that importers must submit requests for retroactive application of GSP over certain entries by December 28, 2015,” CIT said. “Although Customs makes certain decisions related to the liquidation or reliquidation of merchandise, the plain language of the statute does not appear to give Customs discretion in administering refunds for this particular lapse in GSP,” it said.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 10-16:
CTA, having filed its “objections” to the proposed third tranche of Trade Act Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports in Sept. 6 comments that also questioned the duties’ legality (see 1809070032), “will decide our best course of action if and when the president imposes retaliatory tariffs.” So said CTA President Gary Shapiro when we asked if the association will sue the Trump administration to block the tariffs from taking effect. President Donald Trump told reporters at the White House Monday that imposition of the tariffs would be announced imminently in a "pretty comprehensive statement."
President Donald Trump's authority to impose Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum is backed by constitutional provisions giving the president independent oversight of national security and foreign affairs, the Justice Department said in a Sept. 14 filing with the Court of International Trade. The filing was in response to a legal challenge from the American Institute for International Steel and two companies (see 1807200023) seeking a summary judgment to stop the tariffs. The Supreme Court also has previously ruled on the issue, DOJ said.
The Consumer Technology Association “will decide our best course of action if and when the President imposes retaliatory tariffs,” said CTA President Gary Shapiro when asked if the association will sue the Trump administration to block proposed Section 301 tariffs from taking effect. The trade group filed its “objections” to the third tranche of Trade Act Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports in Sept. 6 comments that also questioned the duties’ legality (see 1809070025).
No lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 3-9.
The government is opposing a bid by a group of importers to have CBP issue interim drawback regulations that would allow the agency to begin processing claims under the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act, according to recent court filings. Though those importers hope interim calculation procedures can be issued as soon as October (see 1808280037), the government said the drawback calculation provisions are “not easily divorced” from the rest of a recent proposed rule, and urged the Court of International Trade to let the rulemaking process proceed normally.
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 6 ruled against several petroleum importers seeking drawback on taxes and fees, finding CBP correctly denied the claims because the importers did not include amounts for merchandise processing fee, harbor maintenance tax and excise taxes. Following precedent set by the Federal Circuit over the past 20 years, CIT said the importers were required to file a complete claim within the three years after export, and that the complete claim must include the full amount of drawback requested.