A recent Court of International Trade decision demonstrates the importance to importers of cooperating closely with suppliers on the use of certification marks, and taking the additional step of using available tools to verify the validity of marks from Underwriters Laboratories, customs lawyer Larry Friedman said in a post on his Customs Law Blog.
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 White House has renominated Miller Baker and Timothy Reif (see 1901070044) to be judges on the Court of International Trade. Their nominations were not voted on by the Senate during the last Congress and were returned to the White House (see 1811270025).
Three steel importers recently filed a new lawsuit at the Court of International Trade alleging that an increase in Section 232 tariffs on steel products from Turkey to 50 percent is unconstitutional and violates statutory requirements. In a complaint filed Jan. 17, MedTrade, Transpacific Steel and A.G. Royce Metal Marketing (dba Concrete Reinforcing Products) seek a court order stopping implementation of the tariff increase and refunding any duties collected above the 25 percent applicable to other countries.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 14-20:
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 18 ordered an importer to pay more than $500,000 in penalties and unpaid duties for misclassifying goods that should have been subject to antidumping and countervailing duties, though it declined to impose the full amount requested by the government. Six Star Wholesale allegedly imported wire hangers and polyethylene retail carrier bags from China under the wrong tariff classifications, then failed to defend itself in court against the penalty action.
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 11 ordered an importer to pay a $51,102 penalty for negligent misclassification of wearing apparel that was brought to CBP’s attention by way of a prior disclosure. Selecta (dba Dickies Medical Uniforms) had paid $839,694.38 to the government in 2009-10 as part of a valid prior disclosure of its misclassification of medical scrubs and lab coats. That represented the lost revenue to the government as a result of Selecta’s negligence. But the company did not respond to a subsequent CBP penalty notice seeking $51,102, which was the interest that accrued up until the prior disclosure on the unpaid duties, taxes and fees. Selecta didn’t answer the government’s court complaint either. As a result, CIT found the importer to be in default, and ruled that it has “no basis to conclude that the penalty the government seeks, calculated as the amount of the interest from the dates of liquidation to the dates of payment, would be inequitable.”
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 7-13:
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 14 issued a pair of decisions requiring Commerce to reconcile its “finished merchandise” exclusion from antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China with recent court decisions that took issue with the agency’s long-standing interpretation that fasteners are invisible for the purposes of the exemption.
The Court of International Trade could be a venue for at least two more big cases involving constitutional implications this year, Crowell & Moring lawyer Daniel Cannistra said in the firm's litigation forecast for 2019. The next challenge may involve the Section 301 tariffs and whether a president "can unilaterally rewrite the tariff schedule for the purpose of negotiating trade agreements," Cannistra said. "The other constitutional issues that appear to be on the CIT’s horizon include the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which is sure to contain questions concerning executive authority over trade." The CIT is currently considering the constitutionality of the Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum (see 1812190044), and that case is "likely to be resolved in 2019," Cannistra said. According to Cannistra, "the consequences of these decisions will be profound. For example, if the CIT upholds one of these administration trade policies, what will it mean to a company’s global supply chain? Will production need to be relocated from one country to another? These shifts are not made overnight; the court’s decisions will affect companies for years."
An importer is liable for liquidated damages for its failure to redeliver butane canisters that CBP found bore counterfeit Underwriters Laboratory trademarks, the Court of International Trade said in a decision released publicly Jan. 9. ICCS USA said the products had only minor differences from products it had already registered with UL, but the UL contract required new products to be registered even if they bore only superficial differences, CIT said.