The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 13-19:
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 Jan. 6-12:
A plastic-laminated aluminum foil meant for use in blister packaging is classifiable as an aluminum product, not as plastic film, the Court of International Trade said in a decision issued Jan. 3 and publicly released Jan. 10. Though both the plastic and aluminum components of Amcor’s “Formpack” material provide important characteristics, the aluminum foil protects the pharmaceuticals put into the eventual blister packaging and imparts the material’s essential character, CIT said.
CBP has the authority to interpret the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders when making decisions related to the release of goods, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a Jan. 7 decision. Reversing parts of its own May 2019 decision (see 1905170047), the full court ruled “en banc” that CBP has the responsibility to decide whether AD/CV duties apply to specific entries, even if the scope of the relevant AD/CV duty order is ambiguous without a Commerce Department scope ruling.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 30 - Jan. 5:
Bills of lading provided to CBP by third-party shippers as part of transshipment penalty litigation are allowed as evidence despite claims that such documents do not meet the requirements of permissible hearsay, the Court of International Trade said in a Jan. 3 ruling. The case involves Harvic International, which allegedly transshipped apparel from China through Bangladesh, the Philippines or Korea. The Justice Department filed the suit “seeking a civil penalty of $405,042.90, plus interest and costs” after Harvic did not pay any of CBP's penalty demands.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 23-29:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 16-22:
Brazil's President Jair Bolsonaro said, after a phone call with President Donald Trump Dec. 20, that Brazil will not face tariffs instead of quotas on its steel exports to the United States. Trump had tweeted in early December that the change would come “immediately,” but no Federal Register notice ever put the tweet into action (see 1912020036). He had said at the time that currency devaluation in Brazil and Argentina was “very unfair” to farmers and manufacturers. Argentina and Brazil have taken commodity market share from the U.S. in China, after China imposed tariffs on U.S. products.
A U.S. Department of Agriculture political appointee who has been nominated to the Court of International Trade (see 1911150010) is drawing fire from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, which says he has supported voter suppression policies. Although the CIT does not address civil rights issues, the organizations that sent a letter opposing Stephen Vaden's nomination note that CIT judges can be detailed to circuit or district courts. But even beside their concerns about his political history, they argued that since the 37-year-old has only practiced law for 10 years, and has never handled a trial, he's not qualified to be a federal judge. “Mr. Vaden acknowledged that he has never litigated any matters in the CIT, he is not admitted to practice before the CIT, he has never litigated any matters involving international trade,” they said.