Already-liquidated entries aren’t eligible for refunds after an antidumping or countervailing duty order is revoked, even if the entries came after the effective date of revocation, the Court of International Trade said in a decision issued Oct. 25 (here). The court denied Thyssenkrupp’s attempts to reclaim antidumping duties it paid on corrosion resistant steel products it imported from Germany, finding CBP’s liquidation of the entries was not protestable, and that Commerce’s liquidation instructions complied with AD/CV duty laws that mandate sunset review revocations apply only to future entries, not retroactively.
Court of International Trade
The United States Court of International Trade is a federal court which has national jurisdiction over civil actions regarding the customs and international trade laws of the United States. The Court was established under Article III of the Constitution by the Customs Courts Act of 1980. The Court consists of nine judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and is located in New York City. The Court has jurisdiction throughout the United States and has exclusive jurisdictional authority to decide civil action pertaining to international trade against the United States or entities representing the United States.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Oct. 17-23:
Commerce can’t direct CBP to “continue” to suspend liquidation for antidumping and countervailing duty purposes when CBP’s original suspension of liquidation was improper, the Court of International Trade said in a decision publicly released on Oct. 17 (here). Finding CBP should not have suspended liquidation of Sunpreme’s entries of hybrid solar cells based on its own interpretation of the ambiguous scope language before Commerce clarified it in a scope ruling, CIT also ruled that Commerce could not assess AD/CV duties on the improperly suspended entries once it found Sunpreme’s hybrid cells were indeed covered by the scope.
Cargo vans exported to Canada and retrofitted as motorhomes before being imported into the U.S. do not qualify for duty-free treatment as goods returned after alteration or repair, the Court of International Trade said in a decision issued Oct. 18 (here). The transformation from a cargo van into a motorhome changed the character of the finished product so much that the importer, Pleasure-Way Industries, can no longer claim that it is the same article that it exported for tariff classification purposes, CIT said.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Oct. 10-16:
The Court of International Trade recently blocked the Commerce Department and CBP from collecting antidumping and countervailing duty cash deposits on entries suspended by CBP before Commerce began a scope ruling on the merchandise. After it found Sunpreme’s hybrid solar cells were subject to AD/CV duties in August (see 1608030041), Commerce directed CBP to collect cash deposits on all unliquidated entries, even those that CIT had previously decided CBP had improperly suspended before the scope proceeding (see 1601190080). In a decision publicly released on Oct. 12 (here), the court found Commerce likely had no authority to do so, issuing an injunction stopping collection of cash deposits until it reaches a final decision in the case.
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 6 (here) again rejected a Commerce Department scope ruling on whether curtain wall units, imported separately but under the same order, are subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China (A-570-967/C-570-968). Though Commerce had already reversed its initial scope ruling and found the curtain wall units are exempt, CIT took issue with the logic behind the agency’s revised ruling, especially Commerce’s narrowing of duty exemptions for subassemblies under the aluminum extrusions orders.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Oct. 3-9:
A vehicle imported by Ford as a passenger van to save on duties, but then immediately converted to a cargo van after importation, may have been legitimately “tariff engineered” if the seats originally included in the van were suitable for passengers, the Court of International Trade said Oct. 5 as it declined to rule either way (here). With the government arguing instead that the inclusion of flimsy seats was a deceitful ploy to illegitimately get more favorable tariff treatment, the court requested more information on the seats before it comes to a final decision.
Recent court decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) threaten to close off a crucial avenue for judicial review of CBP ruling revocations and modifications, making it hard for importers to rely on rulings and violating Supreme Court precedent, said a lawyer representing Best Key, a Hong Kong manufacturer of yarn, in a Sept. 29 petition for a rehearing of the hearings by the full Federal Circuit. By directing Best Key to challenge classification via a denied protest, instead of allowing Best Key to challenge it under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Federal Circuit is preventing Best Key from challenging the process under which CBP revoked the ruling, John Peterson of Neville Peterson said in the petition. Best Key claims the ruling revocation process was tainted by the improper participation of its competitors.