The high importance of dumping cases “has to be impressed upon” litigants to help resolve resulting lawsuits quickly, particularly in a time of crisis for the U.S. steel industry, said U.S. Court of International Trade nominee Gary Katzmann during a Jan. 27 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing (here). Minnesota Democrats Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar questioned Katzmann, as well as fellow CIT nominees Elizabeth Drake and Jennifer Groves, on how they would address steel dumping in the U.S., which Franken said in 2015 led to closures and inactivity at state iron ore plants.
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 Jan. 18-24:
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 20 sustained (here) a Commerce Department redetermination finding Meridian refrigerator door trim kits are “finished goods kits” exempt from antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China (A-570-967/C-570-968). Commerce completed the redetermination under protest, having been told by the court in June that non-extruded aluminum parts are not necessary for a product to qualify for the finished goods kit exemption (see 1506240022). According to Commerce, the court’s interpretation would mean a single aluminum extrusion part shipped by fasteners would qualify for the exemption. However, CIT said it “fails to understand why that would be the case,” continuing to find Meridian’s trim kits are exempt from duties, despite containing only aluminum extrusions and fasteners.
Parts made for the Container Store’s "elfa" modular storage furniture system are classifiable as parts of general use, not parts of furniture, said the Court of International Trade in a decision issued Jan. 21 (here). Faulting the Container Store’s argument that the parts are designed for the elfa system, and not for “general use,” CIT said parts of furniture may only be classified alongside furniture in chapter 94 if the parts are not classifiable in a lower number heading (i.e., in chapters 1 through 93) of the tariff schedule.
CBP may only suspend liquidation and collect antidumping and countervailing duty cash deposits if it is specifically directed by the Commerce Department that a product is within the scope of duties, said the Court of International Trade in a decision released to the public on Jan. 13 (here). Finding CBP went above its ministerial role of administering duties by interpreting an ambiguous section of the scope, the court ordered CBP to stop collecting cash deposits from an importer of solar cells from China.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 11-17:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 4-10:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of NAFTA treatment to Ford auto parts imported from Canada (here), finding CBP can apply different certificate of origin waiver requirements to reconciliations than it does to regular post-importation claims. The Jan. 6 decision was marked by a lengthy dissent from Circuit Judge Jimmie Reyna, one of the few Federal Circuit judges with a background in trade.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 28 - Jan. 3:
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 30 denied a challenge to CBP’s collection of harbor maintenance fees on bunker fuel distributed to the Ports of San Diego and Los Angeles, finding the distributor could not dispute the case in court because it did not file a valid protest with CBP (here). The Jankovich Company had argued the bunker fuel was not subject to HMF because it is not commercial cargo. In response, CBP held in a ruling that payment of HMF on the bunker fuel shipments was required. Despite several requests for reconsideration of the ruling, Jankovich never filed a protest to dispute the collection of HMF, even though the regulation on HMF, 19 CFR 24.24, explicitly provides for the filing of protests. Finding Jankovich did not follow the administrative procedures to get its day in court, CIT dismissed the case.