The Court of International Trade on Oct. 10 dismissed a challenge to the timeliness of a CBP demand for payment from a surety related to an importer’s unpaid antidumping duties on preserved mushrooms from China. Hartford Fire Insurance argued the six-year and 30-day deadlines for CBP’s demand ran out because it should have been calculated from the date of deemed liquidation in 2006, not from the date CBP actually liquidated the entries in 2011. CIT found it did not have jurisdiction over the case because the issue should have been raised in a protest and challenged in a denied protest lawsuit under 28 USC 1581(a), not under CIT’s “residual” jurisdiction under 28 USC 1581(i).
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 Oct. 2-8:
Irregularities on a single transaction bond issued to cover antidumping duties on Chinese garlic don’t mean the surety doesn’t have to pay out to CBP, the Court of International Trade said in an Oct. 5 decision. Handwritten changes to the bond after it was signed, in apparent violation of CBP’s regulations, don’t invalidate the bond, CIT said. And despite lengthy delays before the underlying entry was liquidated, the government’s lawsuit to collect was not filed too late, it said.
The Court of International Trade will end its reserve calendar procedures, in a change to its rules that takes effect Oct. 23. The amendment to CIT rule 83 creates a new “Customs Case Management Calendar” for challenges of protests denied by CBP, with a hard 24-month time limit, extendable to 48 months, unless the case is assigned, a complaint is filed, the case is consolidated, the case is suspended under a test case, or the case is voluntarily dismissed.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 25 - Oct. 1:
A customs broker may seek indemnification from an importer client during a Court of International Trade penalty case, even if the broker’s terms and conditions specify a different court for any lawsuits related to the broker’s services, the Court of International Trade said in a Sept. 29 decision. CIT has jurisdiction to hear all cross-claims for relief from liability on entries subject to a trade case, so UPS Supply Chain Solutions may sue its importer client Majestic Mills as part of a government penalty case related to entries on which UPS acted as broker, it said.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 18-24:
Door hardware with knobs that incorporate locks are classifiable as locks in the tariff schedule, the Court of International Trade said in a decision issued Sept. 21. The importer of the hardware, Home Depot, had argued it was classifiable as mountings and fittings for doors, and dutiable at a lower rate. CIT held that, though the hardware includes doorknobs that would be classified as mountings and fittings if imported alone, here the doorknobs acted as levers for a lock.
Locking pliers imported by Irwin Industrial Tool are classifiable in the tariff schedule as pliers, not vises or clamps, the Court of International Trade said in a Sept. 21 decision. Having already ruled in April against CBP’s liquidation of the imported locking pliers as wrenches (see 1704130035), the trade court found that the locking pliers are not classifiable as vises either, because they pivot on a central fulcrum and close by gripping the handles, rather than by turning a screw or lever.
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 15 again ruled that filing for bankruptcy does not stop the government from pursuing Section 1592 penalty cases against importers in court. Mirroring a ruling issued by a different CIT judge in August (see 1708110027), CIT Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves held that Section 1592 has the legitimate public policy purpose of deterring customs fraud and encouraging accurate completion of entry documents. That means it qualifies for the public policy exemption from the automatic stay of claims on debtors during bankruptcy protection, she said. The purpose of the lawsuit is also to fix penalties, rather than collect them, seeing that the court still has a final say in the penalty amount, the court said. In the case, filed in February, the government alleges Greenlight Organic fraudulently imported athletic wearing apparel. Greenlight Organic filed for bankruptcy protection in Nevada in July.