Court of International Trade

The D.C. federal District Court dismissed PRP Trading’s attempt to gain release of several shipments of aluminum extrusions it contends were mistakenly seized for lack of country of origin markings. The Court of International Trade had transferred the case to the District Courts in October, after finding it had no jurisdiction because the shipments had been seized before PRP Trading filed suit (see 12100331). But according to the D.C. court, PRP Trading requested the case be transferred to the wrong district -- it should have brought suit in Puerto Rico -- and in any case the company didn’t complete all required actions at the administrative level before CBP.

The Court of International Trade’s decision on CBP enforcement of patent exclusion orders in Corning Gilbert v. U.S. will stand, after the U.S. government withdrew its appeal May 15. In February, CIT ordered CBP to admit coaxial cable connectors imported by Corning Gilbert, but found by CBP to be subject to an International Trade Commission general exclusion order for patent infringement, and excluded from entry into the U.S. (see 13020405). Corning Gilbert was not a party to the ITC Section 337 investigation that resulted in the general exclusion order, and so the ITC never specifically found that the company’s connectors infringed the relevant patents. Because there was no ITC finding that was directly applicable, and CBP should have undertaken a thorough analysis of whether Corning Gilbert’s connector in particular violated the patents covered by the general exclusion order, the court said. The government's motion did not include detail on why it was withdrawing its appeal. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted the government motion May 16.

The antidumping duty orders on ball bearings from Japan and the United Kingdom are set to be reinstated, after the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided May 16 to reverse several lower court rulings. The Court of International Trade remands had resulted in the International Trade Commission changing its affirmative injury determinations from its sunset reviews to negative ones. That led to revocation of the ball bearings orders for Japan and the U.K. in July 2011. But the appeals court said that, contrary to the lower court’s findings, the ITC injury findings were supported by record evidence, and should have stood.

The Court of International Trade denied Tenacious Holdings’ motion to dismiss a government penalty claim against it related to negligent misclassification of entries. Tenacious said the government should have brought its penalty action as part of the ongoing classification challenge related to the entries. But the court found that, given the idiosyncrasies of case filing procedures at CIT, requiring penalty actions to be filed as counterclaims in classification cases could have the perverse effect of allowing defendants in those penalty actions to run out the statute of limitations.

A Chinese company appealed a decision by the Court of International Trade affirming the Commerce Department’s ability to impose countervailing duties on non-market economy countries, as well as its affirmative subsidy determinations for inputs at less-than-adequate remuneration (LTAR) from state-owned enterprises (see 13031404). The court had denied Guangdong Wireking’s broad constitutional challenge to CV duties on NMEs based on recent precedent approving the practice. Wireking’s other challenge on whether state-owned enterprises are “government authorities” that can bestow subsidies failed on the misunderstanding that “government authorities" have to exercise state authority. Instead, they just have to be owned by the government, CIT said.

The Court of International Trade vacated its August judgment against Nan Ya Plastics’ claim for funds under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA, also known as the Byrd Amendment) (see 12071601). The court will now allow Nan Ya to file an amended complaint, in light of the Appeals Court’s July 2012 ruling in PS Chez Sidney v. International Trade Commission (see 12071604).

The Court of International Trade ruled that laser sintering machines that use an additive manufacturing process to build metal and plastic objects are correctly classified under residual provisions for machinery, instead of as machine tools or laser welders. Both EOS and the government argued that technology in each category has advanced beyond what the writers of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule provisions for those products could have anticipated. But CIT, turning to common definitions of each, said neither category could be stretched to include the laser sintering machines.

Mueller Comercial appealed a Court of International Trade ruling that affirmed the Commerce Department’s decision to partially apply adverse facts available (AFA) to determine Mueller’s antidumping duty rate, despite Mueller’s full cooperation in the 2008-09 AD administrative review on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Mexico (A-201-805). Commerce had used AFA on incomplete cost data needed from one of Mueller’s suppliers. CIT said that the uncooperative supplier would have benefited from a lower AD rate without the partial application of AFA, so use of AFA was justified, despite the fact that Mueller cooperated. Despite ruling in December (see 12122604), the court didn’t enter judgment until May 2.

Riddell appealed a Court of International Trade decision that the company’s football pants, jerseys, and girdles are correctly classified for tariff purposes as apparel, and not sports equipment. The football uniform components were imported without pads, and as goods are classified in their condition as imported, they did not qualify as sports protective equipment, CIT had said (see 13032221).

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that certificates of origin for post-importation NAFTA claims are due within a year of the date of importation, but remanded for CBP to explain why it waives the one-year time limit for post-entry claims filed under its reconciliation program, but not for paper claims. As had the Court of International Trade in November 2011, the appeals court said 19 CFR 10.112, which allows for late submissions of supporting documentation for duty-free claims, doesn't apply to NAFTA post-importation refund claims.