The Court of International Trade may force CBP to issue proposed drawback regulations if the agency doesn't do so on its own soon, CIT Judge Jane Restani said in a June 29 ruling. The decision is part of a lawsuit brought against CBP that said the government is improperly not processing requests for accelerated payment on Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act drawback claims (see 1803260048). While the court declined to issue a preliminary injunction that would have forced CBP to allow for accelerated payment under TFTEA drawback, CIT said it may set its own deadline for the TFTEA drawback rules. "It should soon be apparent whether regulations are forthcoming," the court said.
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 June 18-24:
Emergency Action Notifications issued by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service can’t be challenged at the Court of International Trade, CIT said in a decision issued June 20. Dismissing an importer’s challenge to an EAN citing contaminated wood packaging material and ordering destruction or exportation of the entire shipment, CIT found U.S. district courts have jurisdiction over actions by the Agriculture Department and transferred the case to the Southern Texas U.S. District Court.
Goods don’t qualify for duty-free treatment under the Nairobi Protocol simply because they are made to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Court of International Trade said in a June 19 decision. Toilets imported by Danze are classified as regular toilets, rather than falling under a special tariff provision for products specially designed for the handicapped, because they are meant and advertised for general use, despite including all features required under ADA standards for toilets, CIT said.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 11-17:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 15 ruled against a challenge to Section 201 safeguard duties on solar cells, affirming a recent Court of International Trade decision not to put the duties on hold by way of an injunction. Like CIT did in a “careful and thorough opinion” issued in March (see 1803060027), the Federal Circuit found Silfab, a U.S. importer, and two Canadian exporters, Heliene and Canadian Solar, are not likely to succeed in their challenge because President Donald Trump acted within his authority when he issued the Section 201 safeguards. Among other things, the appeals court found that disagreement at the International Trade Commission and the lack of a unified recommendation on remedy doesn’t mean Trump couldn’t set the tariffs anyway, because the ITC had already found injury, CAFC said. The president also had the authority to set duties on Canada despite the lack of an ITC recommendation to do so, CAFC said.
An importer of solar cells can’t challenge CBP’s decision to require antidumping and countervailing duty cash deposits without a scope ruling in hand, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said June 14. Reversing an October 2016 decision from the Court of International Trade (see 1610200024), CAFC held the trade court did not have jurisdiction to hear a challenge of CBP’s allegedly illegitimate decision to require cash deposits because Commerce had not yet issued a scope ruling on whether Sunpreme’s hybrid solar cells were included under the scope of AD/CVD orders on solar cells from China.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 4-10:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 28 - June 3:
An importer will pay more than $80,000 in penalties for misdeclaring the country of origin on its entries of apparel products, the Court of International Trade said in a May 24 decision. The court ordered Active Frontier International to pay the maximum penalty for negligent customs violations under 19 USC 1592, partly because the importer did not exercise a minimum of reasonable care.