The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 29 - July 5:
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.
Changes to the rules of the Court of International Trade took effect on July 1, according to a notice on the court’s website (here). Changes include amendments to Rules 5, 12, 45, 56, 56.2, 56.3, and Standard Chambers Procedures, as well as technical amendments to several forms and form instructions, said the notice.
The successors of defunct corporations may be held liable for penalties for their predecessors’ customs violations, ruled the Court of International Trade on June 30 (here). CTS Holding, a Michigan importer of stone and stonecutting machinery, argued that the government could not seek nearly $250,000 in penalties under 19 USC 1592 after buying the assets of a company alleged to be guilty of negligent misclassification. The trade court found that 19 USC 1592 includes successors in some circumstances, and that CTS in particular is potentially liable due to its continued use of the defunct company’s name and identical ownership structure and employees.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 30 affirmed the constitutionality of a longstanding requirement to pay duties before bringing most customs cases to court (here). International Custom Products had appealed the case from the Court of International Trade, arguing that requiring the now-bankrupt importer to pay $28 million in duties violated its due process right to a hearing. In yet another twist in ICP’s decade-long struggle involving entries of white sauce that the courts have found were the subject of an improperly revoked ruling, the Federal Circuit found that the conditions set by law for challenging protest denials are inviolable, despite the unpleasant circumstances of ICP’s case.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 22-28:
An ongoing criminal investigation for antidumping and countervailing duty evasion does not in itself justify single transaction bond requirements to combat transshipment, ruled the Court of International Trade on June 26. CBP must detail its reasoning for enhanced bonding requirements by providing the importer and the court with specific allegations, instead of noting suspicion based on the mere existence of an ICE investigation, said CIT.
The Court of International Trade on June 24 ordered the government to pay the attorney’s fees and costs incurred by International Custom Products in a case involving an improper CBP notice of action that reclassified the importer’s white sauce (here). In one of several related cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in April 2014 granted partial victory to ICP by finding CBP’s notice of action revoked an earlier ruling letter without the required notice and comment period (see 14021001). The notice of action had resulted in a 2,400% duty increase that put ICP out of business.
The Court of International Trade on June 23 struck down a core tenet of the Commerce Department’s interpretation of the scope of antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China, finding Commerce’s position that “finished goods kits” must include non-extruded aluminum components is unsupported by the language of the scope. CIT also unsettled another agency precedent by holding fasteners are not irrelevant when determining whether a product meets the “finished goods kit” exemption.
The Court of International Trade on June 19 overturned CBP’s application of antidumping duties on imports of steel electrical conduit, finding the agency wrongly interpreted the scope of an AD duty order on circular welded pipe from China. The government had disputed the importer’s ability to challenge a CBP decision related to AD duties, arguing that Puerto Rico-based LDA Incorporado should have filed suit against the Commerce Department’s scope instructions instead. But with the fact not in dispute that Commerce’s scope instructions exempted LDA’s product, CIT found the importer’s issue was clearly with CBP’s incorrect interpretation and ordered the entries reliquidated.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 15-21: