The following is a selection of articles that appeared in International Trade Today in 2019 covering ruling letters. CBP frequently publishes rulings months after they are issued, so these articles are included based on the dates the articles were published, rather than the date the ruling letter was issued.
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.
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Jan. 21-24 in case they were missed.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 20-26:
Recent CBP regulations limiting the amount of drawback that can be claimed on excise taxes look set to be invalidated, after the Court of International Trade issued a decision Jan. 24 that found those limits contradict the legal framework created by Congress for drawback and legislative intent to expand the duty savings program.
The Court of International Trade issued a decision late on Jan. 24 finding recent CBP regulations limiting the amount of drawback that can be claimed on excise taxes were "unlawful." The court held that a final rule issued by CBP in December 2018 that aimed to prevent so-called “double drawback” contradicts the legal framework created by Congress for drawback.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative seeks comments on its recently reinstated exclusion for bifacial solar panels from Section 201 safeguard duties on solar cells. USTR says it is considering whether to again revoke the exclusion, maintain it or “take some other action with respect to this exclusion.” After creating the bifacial exclusion in June 2019 (see 1906120019), USTR had rescinded the exclusion in October based on concerns that it was undermining the solar safeguard (see 1910080054). The Court of International Trade issued an injunction barring the exclusion’s withdrawal in December after finding USTR violated procedural rules by not allowing for public comment (see 1912050063).
Despite resumed talk about tariffs on European autos, U.S. Chamber of Commerce officials say they are heartened by the first signs of progress in months for trade talks between the European Union and the United States. Marjorie Chorlins, the Chamber's senior vice president of European affairs, said with a new team at the European Commission, and the positive comments after the meeting in Davos, Switzerland, between President Donald Trump and EC President Ursula von der Leyen, the business community is feeling new hope for an improvement in relations. The officials spoke during a Jan. 24 conference call.
A class action lawsuit filed at the Court of International Trade Jan. 16 could result in billions of dollars in refunds to all importers that have paid Section 232 tariffs on steel products, though its chances of success are still unclear, and any payment is a long way off, lawyers say.
A U.S. producer of pipe used in the oil and gas industry filed a lawsuit Jan. 17 challenging the denial of exclusions from Section 232 tariffs on imported steel pipe it uses as inputs. Borusan Mannesmann Pipe U.S. says the Commerce Department relied on incomplete and inaccurate statements in objections from other steel producers to find that the company’s imports could be replaced by domestic production and should not be excluded from Section 232 duties.
The Commerce Department is again amending two suspension agreements that shelve antidumping and countervailing duties on sugar from Mexico (A-201-845/C-201-846). The changes are nearly equivalent to 2017 amendments to the 2014 accords that were thrown out by the Court of International Trade in a decision issued in October (see 1910210051).