The Court of International Trade dismissed part of a challenge to the scope exclusion on finished heat sinks in the antidumping order on aluminum extrusions from China (A-570-967) for lack of jurisdiction under the 28 USC 1581(i) residual provision, but the challenge will proceed on different grounds.
The International Trade Administration initiated administrative reviews for certain firms subject to antidumping and countervailing duty orders with January anniversary dates. The ITA intends to issue the final results of these reviews no later than Jan. 31, 2014.
The Court of International Trade dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Sunshine International Trading’s challenge of CBP’s refusal of an entry of women’s apparel. Sunshine said the refusal was a protestable exclusion, and the company’s argument was bolstered by CBP’s mistaken denial, rather than rejection, of the subsequent protest. But CIT ruled that the refusal wasn’t a protestable final action, so the case couldn’t be tried under 28 USC 1581(a) denied protest jurisdiction. Sunshine’s valuation challenge was also dismissed because valuation can only be protested after liquidation, and the court found an error in the dates listed on the entry rejection to be an irrelevant clerical error.
CBP posted a February version of its list of trade benefits for participants in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) by industry segment. Specific benefits are listed for Customs brokers, importers, self-filers, sureties, carriers, trade account owners (TAOs), as well as all users with portal accounts, for (1) ACE Secure Data Portal, (2) Periodic Monthly Statement, (3) ACE Reports, (4) Cargo Release/Simplified Entry, (5) Entry Summary Filing (6) Document Image System, (7) Post Summary Corrections, (8) e-Manifest: Truck and (9) e-Manifest: Rail and Sea.
A federal court should dismiss Sky Angel’s antitrust claims against C-SPAN, C-SPAN said in a brief filed with the U.S. District Court, Washington, in response to Sky Angel’s opposition to C-SPAN’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Sky Angel has alleged C-SPAN violated federal antitrust law by refusing to allow Sky Angel to distribute C-SPAN programming on its online video service. But in a brief that stopped just short of ridicule, C-SPAN argued that the court should toss Sky Angel’s inconsistent and contradictory complaint. C-SPAN highlighted areas where Sky Angel’s initial complaint and its opposition to the motion to dismiss contradict each other. “Such inconsistent and contradictory pleading is itself a basis for dismissal,” C-SPAN said. “Sky Angel cannot make out even the most basic of antitrust claims in this case because C-SPAN has done nothing wrong,” said Bruce Collins, C-SPAN’s general counsel. “Not every disappointment in life is an antitrust violation,” Collins said. “The tone of the brief should not inspire confidence in C-SPAN’s legal position,” said Jonathan Rubin, Sky Angel’s counsel. “If C-SPAN’s legal position were so clear, then why is it necessary to adopt a tone of ridicule in the first place?” he said. “They don’t seem to want to acknowledge basic principles of antitrust law -- that a trade association cannot get together for the purpose of disadvantaging a rival,” he said.
A federal court should dismiss Sky Angel’s antitrust claims against C-SPAN, C-SPAN said in a brief filed with the U.S. District Court, Washington, in response to Sky Angel’s opposition to C-SPAN’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Sky Angel has alleged C-SPAN violated federal antitrust law by refusing to allow Sky Angel to distribute C-SPAN programming on its online video service. But in a brief that stopped just short of ridicule, C-SPAN argued that the court should toss Sky Angel’s inconsistent and contradictory complaint. C-SPAN highlighted areas where Sky Angel’s initial complaint and its opposition to the motion to dismiss contradict each other. “Such inconsistent and contradictory pleading is itself a basis for dismissal,” C-SPAN said. “Sky Angel cannot make out even the most basic of antitrust claims in this case because C-SPAN has done nothing wrong,” said Bruce Collins, C-SPAN’s general counsel. “Not every disappointment in life is an antitrust violation,” Collins said. “The tone of the brief should not inspire confidence in C-SPAN’s legal position,” said Jonathan Rubin, Sky Angel’s counsel. “If C-SPAN’s legal position were so clear, then why is it necessary to adopt a tone of ridicule in the first place?” he said. “They don’t seem to want to acknowledge basic principles of antitrust law -- that a trade association cannot get together for the purpose of disadvantaging a rival,” he said.
The Court of International Trade dismissed Dependable Packaging Solutions’ classification challenge, ruling that CBP correctly classified the company’s vases in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule as decorative glassware. Dependable argued that because it sold its vases to mass-market flower packing houses, where they were filled and sold to retailers for final sale as a unit, they should have been classified as glass containers for packaging. Noting that the relevant tariff headings referred to principal use, the court disagreed because it found no difference between Dependable’s vases and others sold directly to consumers for decorative use.
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Feb. 4-8 in case they were missed.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) posted the following notices from Feb. 7-8 (may have to click twice on source documents for proper viewing):
The Court of International Trade ordered CBP to admit coaxial cable connectors imported by Corning Gilbert, but found by CBP to be subject to an International Trade Commission general exclusion order for patent infringement. Corning Gilbert was not a party to the ITC Section 337 investigation that resulted in the general exclusion order, and so the ITC never specifically found that the company’s connectors infringed the relevant patents. But CBP denied entry to Corning Gilbert’s connectors based on the exclusion order, and later issued a ruling letter confirming that the company’s connectors were to be refused entry. CIT found that CBP’s ruling letter was not entitled to deference because the agency didn’t adequately address the question of patent infringement. After examining the patent at issue and Corning Gilbert’s connector, CIT said the connector didn’t infringe the relevant patents and should not have been excluded.