The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 6-12:
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 is proposing amendments to its rules (here). Recommended by the court’s Advisory Committee on Rules, the changes would align CIT rules with electronic filing and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, restore rules that were removed in 2013, and amend procedures in antidumping and countervailing duty cases. Comments are due May 1.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 30 - April 5:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 23 - 29:
The Court of International Trade posted to its website a new guide on courtroom technology available to practitioners at the Court of International Trade (here). The document lists equipment available to CIT lawyers, including video and audio conferencing, document display cameras and projectors. It also includes best practices for using courtroom technology.
The Court of International Trade on March 26 vacated a penalty judgment against an importer of candles that failed to pay antidumping duties (here), after the government requested the ruling be set aside to correct an error. The court had in February ordered NYCC 1959 to pay $15,310.08, plus interest, for gross negligence because it failed to declare its candles subject to the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from China (see 1502060042). The allegations of gross negligence were partially based on testimony that NYCC had previously failed to pay AD duties on two prior entries of candles until CBP rate advanced them, and on one of those entries NYCC failed to declare the entry subject to AD duties at all. According to the government, it has since discovered the testimony was incorrect because NYCC did not pay the duties even after the rate advance, and did not declare either entry subject to AD duties. However, despite purportedly having even more evidence of gross negligence, the government is still seeking the same penalty amount of $15,310.08 plus interest for gross negligence.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 16-22:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 9-15:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 13 again upheld the validity of a law allowing countervailing duties on non-market economy countries like China and Vietnam (here). Although the 2012 law had effectively imposed CV duties retroactively on imports from 2007 through 2012, Congress did not violate the Due Process clause of the constitution because it acted with the rational purpose of protecting U.S. manufacturers from unfair trade practices, said the court.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 2-8: