Court of International Trade

The Court of International Trade said in an Oct. 12 ruling that CBP must file a final rule for drawback under the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act with the Office of the Federal Register by Dec. 17. The final rule, except for provisions involving drawback for excise taxes, will be effective when filed, ruled CIT Judge Jane Restani. The excise tax provisions may take effect 60 days after publication.

CBP’s approach to determining the country of origin of finished pharmaceuticals is inconsistent and makes it more expensive for government agencies like the Department of Veterans Affairs to procure drugs for vulnerable patients, the Association for Accessible Medicines said in an amicus brief filed with the Court of International Trade on Oct. 1. AAM filed its brief in support of Acetris Health, a company challenging CBP’s determination that its drugs were not substantially transformed by U.S. finishing operations and are of Indian origin for government procurement purposes. In a set of rulings issued in January, CBP had applied its longstanding policy that the country of origin of Acetris’ Indian active pharmaceutical ingredients sets the origin of the entire finished pharmaceuticals, regardless of the extent of operations necessary to turn that API into medicine.

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

The Court of International Trade again sent back a Commerce Department scope ruling finding mass spectrometer parts subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China, finding in an Oct. 1 decision that the agency did not justify its determination that Agilent’s mass filter radiators are not finished heat sinks exempt from AD/CV duties.

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 1 issued yet another decision faulting the Commerce Department’s inclusion of masonry anchors under antidumping and countervailing duty orders on steel nails from several countries. As it did in two other recent decisions (see 1805290053 and 1809240016), the court held that, regardless of a nail-like steel pin component, Midwest Fastener’s zinc and nylon anchors are unitary articles of commerce that together do not function like nails and are not understood commercially to be nails. Midwest Fastener is challenging a scope ruling issued by Commerce in 2017 that found its zinc and nylon masonry anchors subject to AD/CV duties on steel nails from Vietnam. CIT ordered Commerce to file its redetermination within 90 days.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 24-30:

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 17-23:

Zinc and nylon masonry anchors imported by Simpson Strong-Tie are not covered by antidumping duties on steel nails from China, the Court of International Trade said in a Sept. 21 decision. As it recently did in a separate case involving anchors Commerce had ruled were subject to AD duties on nails from Vietnam (see 1805290053), CIT held that anchors are not commonly considered to be nails, and the inclusion of a nail inside the masonry anchor is irrelevant because the entire anchor should be considered a unitary article of commerce. Unlike nails, which are inserted by impact, masonry anchors are secured by way of a mechanical wedging effect caused by the expansion of the anchor, CIT said. Commerce had in a March 2017 scope ruling found Simpson’s masonry anchors covered by the AD duty order (see 1703280025). That scope ruling was one of several now in question wherein Commerce found masonry anchors are nails (see 1706200062, 1712190067 and 1804030044).

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 24 dismissed a lawsuit from an importer whose Generalized System of Preferences refund request was denied as late, even though the cause was a misunderstanding with the importer’s customs broker. Industrial Chemicals had missed the 180-day deadline to file requests for refunds of duties paid during the GSP lapse of 2013-15. The importer had through a series of emails understood that its broker would request the refunds, and vice versa. After its eventual refund request was denied because it was filed after the deadline, Industrial Chemicals had protested, arguing the issue amounted to a “clerical error, mistake of fact, or other inadvertence.” CBP denied the protest in a ruling issued in November 2017 (see 1711170036). The trade court agreed, finding CBP’s decision was not protestable. The law renewing GSP “clearly states that importers must submit requests for retroactive application of GSP over certain entries by December 28, 2015,” CIT said. “Although Customs makes certain decisions related to the liquidation or reliquidation of merchandise, the plain language of the statute does not appear to give Customs discretion in administering refunds for this particular lapse in GSP,” it said.

Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Stanceau approved on Sept. 19 a request that a three-judge panel hear a constitutional challenge to the Section 232 tariffs. The "action is assigned to a three-judge panel consisting of Judge Claire R. Kelly, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves, and Judge Gary S. Katzmann," the single-sentence order said. The American Institute for International Steel and two companies filed a lawsuit June 27 at CIT over the constitutionality of Section 232 (see 1806270036). The lawsuit sought a three-judge panel because that would allow an appeal to go straight to the Supreme Court.