The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 4-10:
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 Nov. 27 - Dec. 3:
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 27 denied an importer’s request to have the government cover its attorneys’ costs and fees from a lengthy case on CBP’s authority to reliquidate entries that had been deemed liquidated. CBP was justified when it denied the protest that led to the court case because the aggrieved importer, Consolidated Fibers, raised outdated arguments on the protest, even though the company would eventually prevail after raising different claims in its lawsuit.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 20-26:
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 20 dismissed an importer’s bid to invalidate the preliminary determination in the ongoing antidumping duty investigation on aluminum foil from China, finding the importer needs to wait for the final determination to challenge the case. Valeo North America sought to bar the collection of AD duty cash deposits on its imported aluminum foil, arguing that Commerce’s late issuance of the preliminary determination means that it should have been “deemed negative” with all rates automatically set to zero. Valeo claimed CIT had “residual jurisdiction” over the case because all the normal avenues for a court hearing were inadequate. But CIT found Valeo could wait to argue its case in a normal challenge of a Commerce final determination. Paying cash deposits while waiting for a chance to challenge an AD duty case is a normal situation, and “neither the burden of participating in the administrative proceeding nor the business uncertainty caused by such a proceeding is sufficient to constitute manifest inadequacy,” CIT said.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 13-19:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 6-12:
A CBP import specialist marking a protest “approved” does not automatically trigger CBP’s obligation to grant a refund, the Court of International Trade said in a decision publicly released Nov. 8. Though it denied the government’s motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, the court eventually sided with CBP by ruling that the act of reliquidation and the associated calculation of excess duties is what allows a protest, not the checking of a box on the protest form.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Oct. 30-Nov. 5:
Sausage casings made of plastic-coated textiles are classifiable as made-up textiles in the tariff schedule, the Court of International Trade said in a decision issued Nov. 2. Contrary to the arguments of the importer, Kalle USA, CIT found section notes don’t supersede chapter notes, so a section note that Kalle argued puts coated plastics in Chapter 39 must instead be read in combination with chapter notes that leave open the possibility of plastic coatings in the textile chapters of the tariff schedule. CIT also held the single piece of cloth glued together on a seam may be considered “made up” for classification purposes.