CBP does not need to go through the same procedures for unpaid duty claims that are required for penalties, the Court of International Trade said in a Dec. 17 ruling. The lawsuit involves 875 entries filed by Tricots Liesse that were wrongly declared as eligible for NAFTA treatment. CIT previously dismissed a related suit over Section 1592 penalties because CBP did not allow for a face-to-face meeting before imposing the penalties, as required (see 1803260022).
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.
Advertising and trademark royalty fees paid to a fashion brand owner are not included in the dutiable value of apparel imported from an affiliated contract manufacturer, the Court of International Trade said in a Dec. 17 decision. While the importer, Trimil, correctly added design fees paid to Armani to the transaction value of its entries, the advertising and royalty fees also paid to Armani were not directly related to the importation from the manufacturer and are not dutiable, CIT said.
Ziploc bags are classifiable in the tariff schedule under heading 3923 as articles for the conveyance or packing of goods, rather than as plastic household articles of heading 3924, the Court of International Trade said in a Dec. 16 decision. Though the Ziploc bags could be classifiable in both headings, heading 3923 is more specific and is the correct tariff provision under General Rule of Interpretation 3(a), CIT said.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 2-8:
The Commerce Department is formally terminating a 2017 amended suspension agreement covering antidumping and countervailing duties on sugar from Mexico (A-201-845/C-201-846), with the prior, unamended agreement from 2014 resuming effect as of Dec. 7, 2019, it said. The move comes as a result of a Court of International Trade decision issued Oct. 18 that found Commerce improperly withheld information on conversations with Mexican sugar producers during the 2017 negotiations on the deal (see 1910210051).
Some trade remedy exclusions are regulations, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act when it revoked a solar cells safeguard exemption without first putting it up for public notice and comment, the Court of International Trade said on Dec. 5 as it approved a preliminary injunction that keeps the exemption in effect.
CBP is hoping to begin its risk-based bonding program for new importers of merchandise subject to antidumping and countervailing duties in March 2020, but there still remain some thorny issues that need to be ironed out. The agency is still working on ACE enhancements, including identifiers and queries for new importers, said Lisa Gelsomino, of Avalon Risk Management, at the Dec. 4 meeting of the Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC).
Another group of steel importers filed a broad legal challenge to Section 232 tariffs on iron and steel products on Dec. 3, this time alleging that the measures are based on a faulty Commerce Department report and should be terminated by court order and refunded.
Two prominent Republicans questioned the suitability of switching tariffs for quotas because of currency manipulation in Brazil and Argentina, as President Donald Trump said Dec. 2 he is doing. Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., the leading critic of Trump's trade policy, issued a statement that night that said, “He is justifying these tariffs by citing Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. This provision is exclusively meant for national security threats. Yet, the President has acknowledged that the real purpose of this action is to combat currency manipulation -- which does not pose a national security threat. Furthermore, even if this action were legitimate, the statutory window for imposing these tariffs has closed. These actions further underscore that Congress should take up my legislation that would reassert congressional authority regarding imposition of national security tariffs.”
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 25 - Dec. 1: