The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 23-29:
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 Commerce Department may use a substantial transformation analysis to determine the country of origin of a given product in scope rulings, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in an April 25 decision. Vacating a holding of the Court of International Trade, the Federal Circuit found Commerce did not err when it looked into whether Chinese intermediate goods were transformed into Indonesian finished goods when determining whether to apply antidumping duties on oil country tubular goods from China.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 16-22:
The Court of International Trade extended a recently issued temporary restraining order that prevented CBP from requiring a bond of about $125,000 per shipment on an auto parts importer (see 1804090031). The April 19 ruling said the TRO would remain until May 9 in order to allow for a hearing on a motion to convert the TRO into a preliminary injunction. The CIT also ruled on April 12 that a 75 percent bond, proposed by CBP as a reduction from the initial enhanced bonding requirement, could also cause irreparable harm. Instead, U.S. Auto Parts' "single entry bond shall be 3% of the declared commercial value of each shipment, which reflects the approximately 1% quantity of allegedly infringing goods present in the entries multiplied by three," the CIT said. U.S. Auto Parts filed the suit earlier this month in response to what it called excessive bonding requirements (see 1804050022).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 9-15:
The Court of International Trade on April 16 denied an importer’s bid to sink a government customs penalty case, rejecting its arguments that the liquidation of an entry makes it final and bars CBP from imposing penalties and seeking unpaid duties. The court also found the government’s complaint successfully alleged that Great Neck Saw Manufacturers’ omission of purportedly improper “buying commissions” may have constituted violations of 19 USC 1592.
Roasted sunflower seeds imported by Well Luck are classifiable in the tariff schedule as prepared foods, not in a subheading specifically for sunflower seeds, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said as it affirmed a lower court ruling, albeit with different reasoning. Though the seeds are classifiable in both subheadings, the subheading for prepared foods is more specific because it involves additional processing and is more difficult to satisfy, the Federal Circuit said.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 2-8:
An importer accused of trademark infringement will get a reprieve from additional customs bonds it says will put it out of business, after the Court of International Trade on April 6 issued a temporary restraining order narrowing the scope of CBP’s enhanced bonding requirements. The court told CBP to begin processing shipments from U.S. Auto Parts not implicated in the purported trademark infringement, and to restrict its demands for single transaction bonds only to allegedly counterfeit merchandise. The order expires April 20.
The Court of International Trade on April 5 rejected a bid to stop Section 232 tariffs on steel products, finding the recently announced 25 percent tariff may be imposed for economic reasons in addition to national security. The court denied Severstal’s motion for a preliminary injunction barring imposition of the tariffs on the importer, and will now proceed to hear arguments over whether it should dismiss the case entirely.