International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Dec. 9-13 in case they were missed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed on Dec. 12 a lower court ruling against CBP’s imposition of nearly $38 million in penalties on Union Pacific for contraband found in Mexican trains crossing the border. CBP had imposed the penalties after finding illegal drugs on trains brought to the U.S. border by Ferrocarril Mexicano and Kansas City Southern de Mexico, even though Union Pacific didn’t control the trains until after the CBP inspections. The Nebraska U.S. District Court rejected the penalties in 2012, in part because Union Pacific had no reasonable way of preventing cartels from putting drugs on other companies’ trains. The 8th Circuit mostly agreed with the circuit court, vacating only a court order to issue regulations related to the standard of care required of common carriers.
Best Key’s challenge to CBP’s reclassification of its metallic yarn ended on a technicality, as the Court of International Trade on Dec. 13 dismissed the case because if found the Chinese yarn company has no basis to challenge CBP’s ruling. Best Key claimed the ruling would harm its business interests because reclassification as polyester instead of metallic yarn would allow CBP to collect higher duties on garments made from the yarn. But Best Key is a yarn manufacturer, and CIT found that legally Best Key is only able to challenge a ruling based on a product it would import -- the yarn itself, and not the garments made from it. The court found Best Key had no basis to challenge the reclassification, because it actually resulted in a lower duty rate for the yarn.
The Container Store on Dec. 10 filed suit at the Court of International Trade in an attempt to get CBP to follow a 2011 court ruling that classified parts for its elfa hanging modular storage system as furniture. According to the complaint, CBP headquarters instructed port officials to hold off on reliquidation of entries covered under the court ruling. The agency also refused to concede defeat in other lawsuits covering the same product, because it apparently still believes the elfa top tracks and hanging standards should be classified as metal mountings despite CIT’s decision, the complaint said.
As the four primary Farm Bill conferees continue to hammer out legislation details into the December recess, opponents of a Department of Agriculture (USDA) administered catfish inspection program are ratcheting up pressure for the program’s repeal. Lawmakers, trade experts and industry officials claim the program is duplicative, wasteful and in violation of World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements. Part of the 2008 Farm Bill, the program requires the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to ensure catfish exporting countries meet USDA equivalency standards in order to export catfish to the U.S., lawmakers and industry officials say. USDA officials have yet to implement the program, however. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) currently oversees catfish inspection.
The Court of International Trade denied an importer’s challenge to CBP’s tariff classification of its valve motors for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. Belimo Automation said a microchip added to the electric motors that allows for some independent action means the product is classifiable as a regulating and controlling instrument. But the court affirmed CBP’s finding that the product is still an electric motor because it doesn’t measure the variable it’s regulating.
CBP posted its fiscal year 2013 Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (also known as the "Byrd Amendment") annual report (here). Among other things, CBP lists $45.6 million in antidumping duties that are awaiting collection and then disbursement, which will occur in the year in which the monies are received.
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Dec. 2-6 in case they were missed.
The standard under which the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviews some antidumping and countervailing duty cases from the Court of International Trade may be causing a lack of uniformity in appeals court decisions and a lack of predictability for litigants, said five judges from CAFC and CIT during a panel discussion Nov. 21. CAFC Chief Judge Randall Rader and Judges Jimmie Reyna and Evan Wallach, as well as CIT Chief Judge Donald Pogue and Judge Timothy Stanceu participated in the discussion, hosted by the Federal Circuit Bar Association and the Customs and International Trade Bar Association. Hot on the heels of a dissent where Rader, Reyna and Wallach questioned CAFC's practice of taking a fresh look at many CIT cases instead of deferring more to the lower court's expertise, all five judges discussed whether the review standard is due for a change.
The Court of International Trade will hold a training workshop on new features and procedures in the Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system on Dec. 11 from 2:30-4:30 p.m. in New York, N.Y. Two hours of Continuing Legal Education (CLE) credit will be provided. The workshop is not mandatory, but CIT encouraged attorneys who practice before CIT and their support staff to register. The format of the workshop will allow for practical application of skills and for development of skills with new features of the system, CIT said. To attend, complete a request (here) and email it to cmecf_training@cit.uscourts.gov, or fax it to (212) 264-3242 to the attention of Glenn Johnston.