A chemical imported by Chemtall is not an amide, but is instead a derivative of an amide, even though it underwent no process to transform it from an amide, said the Court of International Trade in a decision issued May 25 (here). Chemtall had originally classified its acrylamide tertiary butyl sulfonic acid (ATBS) as an amide under subheading 2924.19.11, dutiable at 3.7%. CBP disagreed, classifying it as a derivative of an amide under subheading 2924.19.80, which has a 6.5% duty rate. The court agreed that the chemical is not an amide because, according to the Explanatory Notes, amides include only an amide functional group and some combination of hydrogen groups and aryl or alkyl radicals. ATBS includes a substituted hydrocarbyl as one component, partly made of sulfur. Chemtall argued its ATBS is not a processed form of amide, and therefore cannot be a “derivative of an amide,” but CIT said “derivative” refers to a compound structurally related to another compound, not solely a compound chemically produced from another compound. “Here, ATBS is a derivative of acrylamide because they share the same chemical structure except for the [hydrocarbyl compound].”
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 appeals of Court of International Trade decisions were filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit during the week of May 16-22:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 9-15:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 2-8:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 25 - May 1:
Aluminum screen door kits imported without screens are not “finished goods kits” exempt from antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China, said the Court of International Trade on April 20 as it sustained a Commerce Department scope ruling. Commerce had in 2014 ruled Circle Glass’ kits ineligible because they did not include all parts necessary to assemble a finished screen door (see 1412110058). CIT agreed, finding “Commerce reasonably explained that [Circle Glass’] ‘patio door kit,’ using only the parts available upon importation, essentially assembles into an empty frame made of extruded aluminum.”
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 18-24:
Components repackaged into finished goods kits after importation are not eligible for the finished goods kit exemption from antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China, said the Court of International Trade in a decision issued April 20 (here). A good to qualifies for the exemption if already packed into kits before importation, even if in separate boxes, but not if the boxes must be opened and the contents rearranged after the merchandise is imported, said CIT as it sustained a 2014 Commerce Department scope ruling on DistriCargo’s exhibition booth kits (see 14081801).
The Federal Register notice announcing the beginning of antidumping and countervailing duty administrative reviews serves as notice to foreign exporters that they are included and must participate to avoid high rates, said the Court of International Trade in a decision issued April 21 (here). A Chinese company, Suntec, had challenged the final results of a review where Commerce assigned it the high “China-wide” rate of over 100 percent because Suntec did not submit the required application for a “separate rate.” Suntec claimed it never received the required notice when a domestic company requested the review, and consequently didn’t know it was under review until after the final results were issued. However, the separate rate application was due after the Federal Register initiation notice, so even with the missing notification from the domestic company Suntec should have known it was listed and required to submit the application, said CIT.
NEW YORK -- As trade lawyers test the waters of a new “small claims” procedure, another way customs lawyers and the government could streamline cases is by adapting procedures followed by their counterparts in intellectual property law, said lawyers at a seminar held by the Customs and International Trade Bar Association on April 21. Parties in customs cases could save a lot of time and expense in some cases if they get right to the legal issues of what HTS provisions mean, rather than engaging in a lengthy discovery process on the product at hand when it might not affect the outcome of the case, said Lawrence Friedman of Barnes Richardson.