A furniture importer is currently pursuing two federal court cases related to the assessment of antidumping duties on an entry where it was incorrectly listed as importer of record, International Trade Today has learned. Following a CBP ruling that held it liable for payment of the 216.01% duty applicable under the AD duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China (see 1501290028), Lifestyle Furniture filed suit in November at the Court of International Trade to challenge CBP’s denial of its protest. Just under a month later, Lifestyle sued the customs broker that apparently made the mistake on entry documentation, Nestor Reyes, in North Carolina Middle U.S. District Court.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 9-15:
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Feb. 9-13 in case they were missed.
The transition of cargo release to the Automated Commercial Environment in November is going to be marked by a transition period that will require some heavy lifting from the trade community, said CBP officials at a National Association Foreign-Trade Zones (NAFTZ) seminar on Feb. 10. While CBP hopes to get everyone to the point where they can exchange electronic messages, it remains to be decided how automation will work at the operational level for entities like terminal operators, truck drivers, and container freight stations that currently stamp paper, said James Swanson, CBP director-cargo security and controls.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 2-8:
The Commerce Department proposed new guidelines on its “finished merchandise” and “finished goods kits” exemptions from antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China (A-570-967/C-570-968), in remand results filed on Feb. 6 with the Court of International Trade.
Companies can’t challenge CBP classification decisions on behalf of the manufacturers that use their products as inputs, even if they may suffer indirect injury in the form of lost sales, ruled the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 3 in an seesawing case on yarn made by Best Key (here). Instead, they must have suffered direct injury to themselves in order to challenge CBP classification decisions in court, said CAFC as it reversed a February decision from the Court of International Trade.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 26 - Feb. 1:
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Jan. 26-30 in case they were missed.
CBP can require a trademark be registered or pending in order for a product to qualify for less stringent country of origin marking rules, said the Court of International Trade on Jan. 28 (here). JBLU challenged CBP’s decision to require its jeans be labeled “made in China” adjacent to and at a similar size as the company’s trade name, C’est Toi Jeans USA, for several entries filed before the company submitted its trademark application to the PTO. It argued CBP should follow the Lanham Act’s definition of trademark as including trade names even if no PTO application has been filed. But CIT found the law and regulations to be silent as to what constitutes a trademark for marking purposes, and decided CBP’s interpretation is a reasonable one.