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.
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 Dec. 21-27:
Lawyers for the U.S. government recently conceded an apparent victory to an importer in a Court of International Trade case on the extent to which the government can reliquidate entries that have deemed liquidated. In a Dec. 21 filing that marked a reversal from its previous position, the government moved for liquidation “as entered” for an entry by Consolidated Fibers that it had previously reliquidated at a higher rate, even though the entry had deemed liquidated nearly three years earlier.
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 21 approved two Commerce Department redeterminations finding ball bearings imported from Thailand are not subject to antidumping duties on tapered roller bearings from China (here) and (here), reiterating its recent stance that Commerce must in some cases conduct anti-circumvention inquiries in order to apply AD duties to third-country merchandise.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 14-20:
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 17 ruled on a series of questions related to suspension of liquidation and interest on antidumping and countervailing duties, but put off its final decision on whether a surety is actually liable for paying them until after a trial (here). In a long-running dispute over whether American Home Assurance Co. owes the government duties on entries where the government never provided notice of suspension of liquidation, the court ruled that neither AHAC nor the government proved whether the lack of notice actually hurt the surety.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 7-13:
The Commerce Department on Nov. 14 announced Precision Fasteners LLC will be exempt from antidumping duties on steel nails from the United Arab Emirates (A-520-804) (here), implementing a Court of International Trade Decision that saw Precision’s AD duty rate drop to zero in the original AD duty investigation of the company. The exemption, which applies to subject merchandise both produced and exported by Precision, will only take full effect once the period expires for appealing the CIT decision, said Commerce. Until then, Commerce will direct CBP to stop collecting cash deposits on subject merchandise produced and exported by Precision.
Lawmakers finished up work on a conference version of long-debated customs reauthorization legislation that combines the underlying concepts of the Senate- and House-proposed customs bills, said Conference Committee members on Dec. 9 (here). Notably, the compromise legislation (here) would impose the ENFORCE Act's firm deadlines on CBP to investigate claims of antidumping and countervailing duty evasion, and would require new regulations on customs broker identification of importers, under threat of penalty. A new provision in the legislation -- absent from either chamber's original bill -- would hold CBP to stricter deadlines for reliquidating entries. The bill could go to a vote on the House floor as early as Dec. 11, a congressional staffer said. The lawmakers also released a summary (here) and joint explanatory statement (here) on the bill's provisions.
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 7 struck down another facet of the Commerce Department’s application of an exemption from antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China (here), finding no basis for disregarding fasteners when determining whether a product meets the “finished merchandise” exemption.