The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 22-28:
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 Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 24 affirmed a lower court ruling that held cellphone cases imported by OtterBox are classifiable in the tariff schedule as generic “other” articles of plastic under chapter 39, dutiable at 5.3%, rather than as containers subject to a 20% duty rate (here). The appeals court agreed with a year-old Court of International Trade decision that found the cellphone cases do not meet most of the four criteria for classification as containers under heading 4202 -- organizing, storing, protecting, and carrying – and are also dissimilar from such containers because they are designed to allow use of the cellphone while inside the container (see 1506020062).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 15-21:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 8-14:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 1-7:
Protests may be filed to claim Generalized System of Preferences benefits, the Court of International Trade said in an Aug. 4 decision (here) that appears to contradict current CBP policy. Though it dismissed an importer’s challenge on a technicality, the court found flaws with the basis of CBP’s 2014 directive that ports no longer accept protests used to claim GSP duty-free treatment post-liquidation (see 14081320). CIT “essentially ruled that the government was wrong in taking the position that GSP claims cannot be raised in a protest,” said John Peterson of Neville Peterson, who represented the importer, Zojirushi America.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of July 25-31:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of July 18-24:
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for July 18-22 in case they were missed.
An importer of aluminum extrusions from China that paid a 374.15% AD duty cash deposit owes a 374.15% assessment, even though the "all others" rate was subsequently lowered to 7.37% in litigation, the Court of International Trade said in a decision issued July 20 (here). Because the importer did not participate in the court case that lowered the rate, or in any administrative review that could have resulted in a different assessment, Capella Sales & Services owes duties at the cash deposit rate in effect at time of entry, even if it was later invalidated, the court said.