The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a challenge brought by Ford to CBP’s denial of a $6.2 million refund of duty overpayments on entries of Jaguar cars. Ford requested the refunds via reconciliation, and argued its reconciliation entries should have deemed liquidated, and the refunds issued, when a year passed without any CBP action. As explained by Ford, the Court of International Trade had first ruled its court challenge was filed to early (see 10072920), and then ruled it was too late (see 14061901). Moving past the timing question, the Federal Circuit a Feb. 3 decision (here) ruled that CIT was within its rights to decline to issue judgment in favor of Ford, and make the company challenge denied protests of the liquidations themselves. “District courts may refuse declaratory relief where an alternative remedy is better or more effective,” it said.
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 International Trade allowed CBP to proceed with enhanced bonding requirements on an importer of garlic from China, finding on Feb. 11 that a preliminary antidumping duty rate calculated by the Commerce Department is sufficient basis to mandate a high single transaction bond. Premier Trading had requested an injunction, arguing Commerce’s decision was premature until the final results of an AD duty administrative review set an actual final rate. But CIT said Premier failed to cite specific laws and evidence in favor of the injunction, criticizing a “lack of candor” by the company’s lawyer.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 8-14:
Units of curtain walls imported separately for assembly into a finished curtain wall of a building are subassemblies that may be exempt from antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China, said the Court of International Trade in a Feb. 9 decision (here). The court ordered the Commerce Department to reconsider a 2014 scope ruling that found Yuanda window wall units are covered by duties because they are imported separately and ineligible for the “finished goods kit” or “finished merchandise” exemption (see 14033128).
International Custom Products recently requested that the U.S. Supreme Court hear its challenge to the constitutionality of the requirement that importers pay duties before filing suit at the Court of International Trade, according to the Supreme Court’s website (here). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in June 2015 that the duty payment for court challenges of denied protest does not violate International Custom Products’ right to due process (see 1506300073). The now-bankrupt importer would have had to pay $28 million to have its case heard at CIT on the classification of white sauce. International Custom Products had argued a CBP notice of action improperly revoked a ruling letter without the required notice and opportunity to comment (see 12121239).
No lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 1-7.
CBP outlined its recent enforcement work related to antidumping and countervailing duties in an AD/CVD Update for November that includes statistics for fiscal year 2015 (here). CBP said it "carried out 28,783 entry summary reviews on potential AD/CVD violations and identified over $29 million in AD/CVD noncompliance." Products associated with the most AD/CVD violations during FY2015 were tires, solar cells, and pencils, CBP said. The agency said its lawyers were involved in over 350 AD/CVD cases during the fiscal year and scored several major legal victories. "For example, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed with CBP that sureties are liable for penalty interest" on all customs bonds, including AD/CVD bonds, it said. The agency's Garlic Antidumping Enforcement Team also successfully defended a requirement for additional single transaction bonds with the Court of International Trade. As a result, CBP saw "shipments valued at over $5.8 million exported back to the country of origin as importers did not want to file additional bonds; shipments valued at over $6.9 million exported or destroyed; and shipments valued at over $4 million were released after an importer posted a $1 million bond with CIT," it said. CBP also highlighted the agency's enforcement on steel imports (see 1601250019).
Assemblies of extruded aluminum parts are not covered by the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, said the Court of International Trade in a Feb. 1 decision (here). Finding irrelevant the question of whether assembled appliance door handles qualified for the “finished merchandise” exemption from duties, CIT Chief Judge Timothy Stanceu found assemblies are not included in the scope of duties in the first place because assembly is not one of the post-extrusion processes – drawing, fabricating and finishing – that are allowed by the scope.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 25-31:
In the Jan. 20 issue of the CBP Customs Bulletin (Vol. 50, Nos. 2 and 3) (here), CBP published notices that propose to revoke or modify rulings and similar treatment for hydraulic braking system parts.