Court of International Trade

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 29 - May 5:

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 22-28:

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 15-21:

The Court of International Trade on April 22 ordered a novice importer to pay a $141,984.98 penalty, plus $146,368.64 in unpaid duties, for failure to declare stainless steel flanges subject to an antidumping duty order. Despite the Titan Metals’ small size, the court found the importer’s false statements on entry documentation “particularly egregious,” setting the penalty at 50 percent of the legal maximum.

Recent Court of International Trade decisions leave the door open for confusion among importers and customs brokers on tariff classification, customs lawyer Larry Friedman said in an April 17 blog post. Though CIT found in an April 8 decision that use is not a consideration when classifying locking pliers imported by Irwin Industrial Tool Company(see 1904100037), it’s still unclear when use should or should not be considered in light of a 2014 Federal Circuit decision that use should be considered when classifying GRK wood screws (see 14080420). Neither tariff provision includes the terms “for use as” or “for use with,” both of which clearly signal a use provision. “Classification is a legal analysis. It is, at the same time, also performed every day by thousands of non-lawyers who are engaged in making compliance decisions for importers large and small,” Friedman said. “Even licensed brokers are not always fully aware of the details of the legal analysis of tariff language. Bright line tests are necessary to facilitate trade and to avoid creating traps for the average importer, for whom the statute is allegedly written in the language or ordinary commerce.”

CBP's rule that ended the use of some drawback for goods subject to excise tax was unsupported by the economic analysis and the intent of Congress, the National Association of Manufacturers said in its legal challenge to the drawback changes. NAM, represented by Sidley Austin and Hogan Lovells, told the Court of International Trade that the rules should be vacated and "permanently enjoin the enforcement of the Rule to the extent that it purports to limit drawback granted on the export or destruction of substituted merchandise to the amount of taxes paid," it said. A legal challenge to the rules was widely anticipated (see 1812190011).

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 8-14:

A group of steel importers will take their challenge of Section 232 tariffs on iron and steel products to the Supreme Court, according to a petition for certiorari dated April 15. The American Institute for International Steel and two of its members argue in the filing that their recently filed U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit appeal would be a waste given that the case would likely end up before the Supreme Court anyway. They also say the ongoing harm to the steel industry and the potential for new Section 232 tariffs on cars and auto parts mean a final decision is needed as soon as possible.

An importer will pay $62.5 million to settle allegations of antidumping duty evasion, avoiding a jury trial that would have been the first at the Court of International Trade in about 20 years. Univar acted with negligence or gross negligence when it imported Chinese saccharin that had been transshipped through Taiwan to avoid a 329% antidumping duty, the Department of Justice said in an April 9 press release. The scheme cost the government about $36 million in lost AD duty revenue, DOJ said.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 1-7: