The Court of International trade on May 25 issued an injunction barring CBP from imposing harsh bonding requirements on an importer accused of trademark infringement, finding CBP Norfolk far exceeded the agency’s own guidelines for bond amounts. The single transaction bond required by CBP Norfolk on U.S. Auto Parts would have put the company out of business, and indiscriminately applied to merchandise that was not alleged to be counterfeit while ignoring guidance in CBP’s bond directive, 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.
Masonry anchors are not nails, the Court of International Trade said in a May 29 decision that calls into question the Commerce Department’s interpretation of the scope of antidumping and countervailing duties on steel nails. Overturning a 2017 scope ruling that found OMG’s masonry anchors are covered by AD/CV duties on steel nails from Vietnam (see 1702220043), the court held that neither common dictionary definitions nor commercial terms support the idea that anchors are a type of nail.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 21-27:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued two decisions in recent days upholding a broader coverage of antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China, striking down a set of Court of International Trade opinions that found two Commerce Department scope rulings too expansive.
After years of litigation, a "clarification" to the scope of antidumping duties on petroleum wax candles from China once deemed "overbroad" by the Court of International Trade will apparently stand. A candle importer, Trade Associates Group, agreed to dismiss its lawsuit with prejudice, meaning it can't bring the same challenge again. The National Candle Association, which represents U.S. candle manufacturers, claimed victory in a news release.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 14-20:
The Court of International Trade on May 15 ordered the Commerce Department to reconsider a 2017 scope ruling that found fittings used with electrical conduit are subject to antidumping duties on malleable iron pipe fittings from China. The court said Commerce failed to consider whether the term “pipe” in the scope of the AD duty order includes products like electrical conduit that are not designed to withstand pressure.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 7-13:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 30 - May 6:
The Court of International Trade on May 3 dismissed a steel importer’s challenge of Section 232 tariffs on iron and steel products. Severstal Export Miami, its affiliate Severstal Export GmbH, and the U.S. government had agreed to the dismissal, after CIT in April denied Severstal’s motion for a preliminary injunction to stop imposition of the 25 percent tariff on Severstal’s imports. Severstal agreed to dismissal with prejudice, so it won’t be able to bring its claims again at CIT. The court had told Severstal that the case would be unlikely to succeed, noting that Section 232 gives the president the discretion to impose Section 232 tariffs even for economic threats to national security (see 1804060028).