The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 12-18:
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 Court of International Trade on March 16 sustained a Commerce Department scope ruling that found tubing imported by DynaEnergetics for use in perforating gun carriers in oil wells is subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on oil country tubular goods from China (see 1603040035). DynaEnergetics had argued an earlier version of the scope included in the original China OCTG petition said duties should “only” cover casing, tubing and coupling stock, and not perforated gun carrier tubing. But the scope adopted by Commerce since it began the AD/CV duty investigations omits the word “only,” so it also covers other tubular goods used in oil wells, CIT said. The gun carrier tubing is a tubular steel product used in oil and gas wells, and is covered by the scope of the AD/CV duty orders, CIT said.
Agricultural “training stakes” made from rebar are subject to antidumping duties on steel concrete reinforcing bar from China, the Court of International Trade said in a March 9 decision. Sustaining a scope ruling issued by the Commerce Department in 2016, the court also agreed with Commerce’s instructions that CBP “continue” to suspend liquidation of the training stakes, rather than require payment of AD duties only on entries after the scope ruling.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 5-11:
The Court of International Trade granted a motion for default judgment against a food importer, Rupari Food Services, and said the company owes "$2,784,636.18, plus post-judgment interest," in a March 9 opinion. That amount is based on the CBP penalty claim against the importer prior to Rupari filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The decision follows another CIT decision in the same case that said bankruptcy protections don't apply to Section 592 penalty cases (see 1708110027).
Toilet paper holders imported by Moen are classifiable as duty-free racks in heading 8302, not as articles of their constituent zinc, iron or steel, the Court of International Trade said in a decision issued March 7. The toilet paper holders are similar to the “hat-racks, hat pegs, brackets and similar fixtures” listed as examples in heading 8302, and articles classifiable in chapter 83 can’t be classified as base metals of chapters 73 or 79 of the tariff schedule, CIT said, overruling CBP’s classification.
A U.S. cigar distributor may have committed import violations and be liable for more than $3 million in unpaid excise taxes even though it did not act as importer of record on the underlying shipments, the Court of International Trade said in a March 7 decision. Denying Good Times’ motion to dismiss the case, partly because Maverick actually imported the cigars, CIT found that Good Times may have controlled the transaction and fraudulently “introduced” the goods in violation of 19 USC 1592.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 26 - March 4:
The Court of International Trade on March 5 declined to block implementation of recently announced Section 201 safeguard duties on solar cells. The court said it would not issue an injunction against imposition of the tariff-rate quotas, which took effect Feb. 7 (see 1801240036), finding arguments from Canadian exporters and a U.S. importer in favor of the block unlikely to prevail in a final decision on the safeguards.
An importer facing stiff penalties for an alleged antidumping duty evasion scheme can’t bring in a customs lawyer as an expert witness to testify that it exercised “reasonable care,” the Court of International Trade said in a March 2 decision. Whether Univar’s conduct met the “reasonable care” standard is a legal question, and inviting the customs lawyer to testify on that issue would be improperly taking that decision away from the judge and jury, CIT said.