Court of International Trade

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 8-14:

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 2-7:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 5 affirmed a lower court ruling on the applicability of special duty provisions for goods returned after repairs or alterations in Canada or Mexico, though it declined to rule as broadly as the Court of International Trade did in its 2016 decision. The Federal Circuit agreed that cargo vans exported by Pleasure Way for conversion into motor homes don’t qualify for classification in subheading 9802.00.50 of the tariff schedule because the exported and imported articles are commercially different, but declined to weigh in on whether they share the same “essential characteristics” or “intended use.”

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of Dec. 18-31:

A recent Court of International Trade ruling on a Justice Department request for discovery regarding the involvement of company executives "should send a shiver of concern up the spine of corporate officers and compliance personnel," Barnes Richardson lawyer Lawrence Friedman said. The lawsuit involves Greenlight Organic and allegations that the company illegally misclassified and undervalued merchandise. Within that litigation, the government sought information on the personal finances and the role of two corporate principals that "appear directed at determining whether those individuals were responsible for the alleged fraud or negligence," Friedman said on his blog.

Children’s clogs imported by LF USA are not classifiable in the tariff schedule as duty-free waterproof footwear, the Court of International Trade said in a decision issued Dec. 22. Despite LF’s arguments to the contrary, the court held that to be waterproof the footwear must protect the wearer’s foot from water. Instead, CBP’s classification as “other” rubber or plastic footwear was correct, the court said.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed with a Court of International Trade decision on the classification of a chemical as a derivative of an amide despite the lack of a transformation process, the CAFC said in a Dec. 21 ruling. CIT previously ruled that the chemical, imported by Chemtall, is not an amide because, according to the Explanatory Notes (ENs), amides include only an amide functional group (see 1605260031). The lawsuit hinged on the question of whether the inclusion of a heteroatom within the chemical structure of acrylamide tertiary butyl sulfonic acid (ATBS) means ATBS cannot be considered an amide.

International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Dec. 18-22 in case they were missed.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 11 sustained a Commerce Department scope ruling that found curtain wall units imported separately by Yuanda for the same construction project are covered by antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China (A-570-967/C-570-968). Capping a long-running case wherein Commerce at one point ruled the curtain wall units are exempt (see 1610110052), CIT held that curtain wall units may be subassemblies that are not subject to duties, but that Yuanda’s units need further fabrication before assembly, disqualifying them for the exemption. For example, hangers, lock panels, shims and embeds needed for the final curtain wall are not included on any invoice or entry forms, CIT said. With the issue of whether Yuanda’s curtain wall units are covered decided, CIT found it did not need to rule on whether the curtain wall unit exemption applies only to units imported as one customs entry, or whether the units can be imported in multiple entries for the same project over an extended period.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 11-17: