International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Feb. 23-27 in case they were missed.
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 Feb. 23 - March 1:
Recent rulings from the Court of International Trade mean CBP will be much stricter going forward on what it does and doesn’t consider a valid protest, said Carrie Owens, chief of CBP’s entry process and duty refund branch. Speaking during a panel discussion at the Georgetown Law School International Trade Update conference on Feb. 27, Owens gave a variety of advice on the protest process, including that protests need to follow the form specified by law and regulation and should be as complete as possible to give it the best chance of being approved.
Customs protests must strictly adhere to statutory and regulatory requirements in order to be valid, said the Court of International Trade in a Feb. 23 ruling (here). Even if it’s obvious that a document is intended as a protest, the protest is not valid unless it includes all required information in the prescribed format, said the court as it dismissed a challenge to the classification of an imported Rolls Royce because the underlying protest wasn’t valid.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 16-22:
A furniture importer is currently pursuing two federal court cases related to the assessment of antidumping duties on an entry where it was incorrectly listed as importer of record, International Trade Today has learned. Following a CBP ruling that held it liable for payment of the 216.01% duty applicable under the AD duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China (see 1501290028), Lifestyle Furniture filed suit in November at the Court of International Trade to challenge CBP’s denial of its protest. Just under a month later, Lifestyle sued the customs broker that apparently made the mistake on entry documentation, Nestor Reyes, in North Carolina Middle U.S. District Court.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 9-15:
The Commerce Department proposed new guidelines on its “finished merchandise” and “finished goods kits” exemptions from antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China (A-570-967/C-570-968), in remand results filed on Feb. 6 with the Court of International Trade.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 2-8:
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 6 ordered an importer to pay over $15,000 in penalties for evading antidumping duties (here). NYCC 1959 allegedly imported candles subject to the AD duty order on petroleum wax candles from China, but indicated on entry documentation that the merchandise was not subject to any antidumping duties. The company didn’t respond to the government’s allegations in court within 60 days of the filing of the government’s complaint, so CIT found the company in “default” and automatically found the government’s allegations were true.