Pencil importer Royal Brush Manufacturing was required to file protests before it could challenge CBP's allegedly improper liquidations under an Enforce and Protect Act antidumping duty evasion investigation, the Court of International Trade ruled on Dec. 15. Dismissing the company's case for lack of jurisdiction, Judge Mark Barnett echoed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling in Juice Farms v. U.S. in ruling that "all liquidations, whether legal or not, are subject to the timely protest requirement."
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 ruled Dec. 11 that imported industrial shredders that use blades to break up material carry no duties because they are classifiable as crushing and grinding machines.
More than 50 agriculture interests, led by the National Corn Growers Association, asked the International Trade Commission to reconsider the impact of weather in 2019 when examining the phosphate purchases and import patterns of farmers, as the Court of International Trade instructed it to (see 2309190060). Flooding along the Mississippi River led to shipment problems for fertilizer, as well as fields that couldn't be planted.
The Court of International Trade doesn't have jurisdiction to hear importer Southern Cross Seafoods' challenge to the National Marine Fisheries Service's rejection of its application for preapproval to import Chilean sea bass, the court ruled Dec. 7. Judge Timothy Reif said that the agency's decision, issued under the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act of 1984 (AMLRCA), doesn't constitute an "embargo or other quantitative restriction," barring jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction.
Textile gloves with a plastic coating on the palm and fingers are classifiable in the tariff schedule as gloves, not as articles of plastics, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a Dec. 6 opinion.
The Commerce Department is reinstating exemptions for four exporters under the countervailing duty order on softwood lumber products from Canada (C-122-858), implementing a recent court decision that upheld the results of an expedited review conducted by the agency that first exempted the companies in 2019 (see 1907030015).
The Court of International Trade ruled Dec. 4 that a medical food company's imports would be classified as food, not as pharmaceutical products.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 27 - Dec. 3:
The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 30 opinion said that it is likely to have jurisdiction over Chinese exporter Ninestar Corp.'s challenge to its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Following Ninestar's motion for a preliminary injunction against its placement on the list, Judge Gary Katzmann ruled more narrowly, holding Ninestar is likely to show that jurisdiction is proper under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, which covers any civil action regarding "embargoes or other quantitative restrictions." While the U.S. said the UFLPA Entity List does not create an embargo since it establishes a rebuttable presumption, Katzmann said the court has exerted jurisdiction over similar embargoes where exemptions or reconsideration are granted.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of Nov. 6-12, 13-19 and 20-26: