U.S. Customs and Border Protection has posted an updated version of its spreadsheet of ACE ESAR A2.2 (Initial Entry Types) programming issues.
The International Trade Administration has initiated administrative reviews of certain companies subject to antidumping duty orders, which may result in new estimated AD cash deposit rates for the listed firms. The ITA intends to issue the final results of these administrative reviews no later than October 31, 2012.
The Center for Environmental Health announced it has reached settlements with eleven companies1, including Kiss My Face, Boots, and Colomer, requiring them to adhere to the California Organic Production Act (COPA). The settlement follows CEH’s June lawsuit alleging their products were mislabeled as organic.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is providing advanced notice of 24 country/tariff number pairs that may exceed the 2011 Competitive Need Limitations (CNLs) under the Generalized System of Preferences program and could possibly lose their GSP eligibility on July 1, 2012.
The Court of International Trade has ruled in favor of U.S. Customs and Border Protection in Ford Motor Company v. U.S., denying Ford's claims for a refund of duties under NAFTA after untimely filing its NAFTA certificates of origin beyond the statutory one year limit. The CIT agreed with CBP that a valid refund claim exists only when the importer has filed all required documentation. As such, all components of a claim, including copies of the certificates of origin, must be filed within one year of importation.
In Cisco Systems, Inc. v. U.S., the Court of International Trade denied U.S. Customs and Border Protection's motion to dismiss challenges to its classification of "networking equipment" in protests filed by Cisco Systems, Inc. Customs argued that Cisco's protests were invalid because the use of the phrase "networking equipment" is too vague. However, the CIT stated that technical precision is not required in protests and that Customs could have sought more information from Cisco to evaluate its protests.
Forcing ISPs to monitor all e-communications on their network to prevent digital piracy would seriously infringe their freedom to conduct their business and may also breach customers’ civil rights, the European Court of Justice said in a closely watched opinion November 24. National authorities and courts must strike a fair balance between protecting intellectual property rights and operators’ businesses, something the Belgian court order against ISP Scarlet failed to do, the court said. The decision will dramatically affect the national and European debate on online copyright infringement, said telecom/Internet independent advisor Innocenzo Genna.
Forcing ISPs to monitor all e-communications on their network to prevent digital piracy would seriously infringe their freedom to conduct their business and may also breach customers’ civil rights, the European Court of Justice said in a closely watched opinion November 24. National authorities and courts must strike a fair balance between protecting intellectual property rights and operators’ businesses, something the Belgian court order against ISP Scarlet failed to do, the court said. The decision will dramatically affect the national and European debate on online copyright infringement, said telecom/Internet independent advisor Innocenzo Genna.
Forcing ISPs to monitor all e-communications on their network to prevent digital piracy would seriously infringe their freedom to conduct their business and may also breach customers’ civil rights, the European Court of Justice said in a closely watched opinion Nov. 24. National authorities and courts must strike a fair balance between protecting intellectual property rights and operators’ businesses, something the Belgian court order against ISP Scarlet failed to do, the court said. The decision will dramatically affect the national and European debate on online copyright infringement, said telecom/Internet independent advisor Innocenzo Genna.
On November 7, 2011, the U.S. brought a case before the Court of International Trade to sue Pier Garden, Inc., a California clothing retailer, for $1.9 million in penalties for allegedly importing apparel during 2004-2006 that was made in China, but claimed to be made in Russia, in order to avoid a quota.