Interest accrues on customs bonds that are subject to ongoing lawsuits for recovery of antidumping and countervailing duties, ruled the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 17. Overturning a January 2014 decision from the Court of International Trade, the court found that the law on interest for bonds subject to lawsuits applies to all “duties,” and not just customs tariffs.
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 again ordered an importer to pay over $15,000 in penalties for its failure to pay antidumping duties on petroleum wax candles it imported from China, in a decision issued June 19 (here). CIT had originally ordered NYCC 1959 to pay the penalty for gross negligence under 19 USC 1592, finding the company failed to defend itself against allegations that it continued to declare the merchandise was not subject to antidumping duties that CBP had twice previously told NYCC 1959 it needed to pay (see 1502060042. CIT later vacated its penalty judgment after the government discovered inaccuracies in witness testimony (see 1503260012). Now that the government has corrected the issue, CIT has again ordered NYCC to pay the penalty.
Tableware and kitchenware must all be of the same color, shape and decoration in order to be classified as tableware and kitchenware sets in the tariff schedule, ruled the Court of International Trade on June 17 in a test case on the classification of mugs and cups imported by G.G. Marck (here). Such articles must also be designed for use as a set to qualify, which can be demonstrated by catalogs or marketing materials showing the articles listed for sale in a set, it said.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 8-14:
The Court of International Trade on June 12 gave CBP the go-ahead to set heavy bonding requirements for an importer of garlic from China (here), after putting the agency’s decision on hold in October. CBP had required Kwo Lee to post a single transaction bond at the $4.71/kg antidumping duty rate for the China-wide entity, rather than the $0.35/kg rate in effect for garlic produced and exported by the Chinese company listed on Kwo Lee’s entry documentation. Despite initially issuing an injunction to save Kwo Lee from bankruptcy while it considered the facts of the case (see 1410220063), CIT ruled that CBP was justified in its distrust that the garlic was actually produced by the exporter in question.
The Court of International Trade on June 9 dismissed two cases brought by importers challenging the allegedly late liquidation of entries subject to antidumping duties on wooden bedroom furniture from China. Hutchison Quality Furniture (here) and P.F. Stores (here) argued their entries should have deemed liquidated because CBP missed the six-month window for liquidating entries affected by a court decision. The companies said the error was the result of Commerce’s liquidation instructions. In two separate decisions from Judge Claire Kelly, CIT ruled that liquidation is CBP’s responsibility, and can only be challenged by filing a protest, paying the required duties, and bringing a case against the denied protest at CIT.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 1-7:
Cellphone cases imported by OtterBox are classifiable as articles of plastic under chapter 39 of the HTS, and not under an expansive heading in chapter 42 covering various types of containers, said the Court of International Trade in a May 26 decision released on June 2 (here). Overturning the classification and duty rate assessed by CBP at liquidation, the court also ruled that CBP owes OtterBox refunds on post-importation payments of duties on assists provided in connection with the cellphone cases.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 25-31:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 18-24: