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.
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 government cannot seek Section 1592 customs penalties in court at a different level of culpability than alleged by CBP in a penalty notice, said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 1 (here). Affirming a Court of International Trade decision from 2012 (see 12041647), the appeals court held a government penalty claim for negligence is barred because the pre-penalty and penalty notices CBP issued to Nitek Electronics alleged only gross negligence.
There's only a very narrow set of circumstances under which furniture that is not part of a bedroom set may be subject to antidumping duties on wooden bedroom furniture from China, ruled the Court of International Trade on Dec. 1 as it remanded a scope ruling on Ethan Allen chests (here). Though standalone furniture may sometimes be included under the scope, finding part of a living room set subject to bedroom furniture duties exceeds that narrow exception, said the court as it sent the ruling back to the Commerce Department for reconsideration.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 23-29:
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 23 ruled in favor of an importer in a classification case that centered on now-obsolete sections of the tariff schedule (here), finding commercial printers imported by Xerox classifiable in the 2004 HTS under heading 8471 as units of automatic data processing machines. The government had argued the printers, subject to the 2004 HTS because they were imported that year, were instead classifiable as “other office machines” under heading 8472 because their speed and quality moved them out of the realm of mere office printers. However, CIT held to the long-held tenet that a tariff term must be interpreted to embrace all articles that subsequently come within its scope, finding the Xerox commercial printers have data processing capabilities that make them ADPs regardless of their print quality or speed. Tariff provisions classifying certain printers as ADPs were superseded by the World Customs Organization’s 2007 changes to the tariff schedule, which moved subheadings for laser printers to heading 8443 (see 06080430).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 16-22:
CIT Finds Reliquidation of Deemed Liquidated Entries Permissible, But Declines Ruling on Time Limits
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 16 ruled that CBP can reliquidate entries that have already deemed liquidated, but steered clear of the question – for now, at least – of how long CBP may wait before reliquidating, declining a motion from the surety Great American Insurance Company to dismiss a government bid to collect unpaid antidumping duties.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 9-15:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 2-8:
A second protest cannot be filed on an entry after denial of the first, even if filed by a different person, said the Court of International Trade on Nov. 9 as it dismissed an importer’s lawsuit challenging the valuation of two entries of pencils (here). Design International Group had already had two protests on the two entries denied on when it filed a third protest on the two entries, still within the 180 day time limit for protest filing. Though 19 USC 1514(c)(1)(D) generally allows only one protest for each entry of merchandise, Design International cited an exception for “separate protests filed by different authorized persons,” noting the first two protests were filed by its customs broker, while the third was filed by its attorney. CIT, citing previous case law, ruled that the exception for different authorized persons does is not applicable when the first protest has already been denied. According to the court, allowing additional protests when a protest has already been denied would allow an unending series of protests, each protesting the previous denial.