The Court of International Trade on Sept. 15 denied another bid to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a gray market importer challenging Lever-Rule protections recently granted to Duracell Batteries (see 1701270015). This time calling the importer by its real name, Milecrest Corporation, after recently finding the company was not allowed to use the pseudonym XYZ Corporation (see 1709130007), CIT again ruled that Lever-Rule determinations to restrict imports of gray market goods may be considered customs rulings challengeable at the trade court. Duracell, which has intervened in the case on the side of the government and filed the motion to dismiss, did not raise any new issues “that would invalidate the court’s previous opinion regarding jurisdiction” issued in July in response to the government’s earlier motion (see 1707240031), CIT said.
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 Sept. 11-17:
An importer’s lawsuit on the tariff classification of child bicycle seats will proceed unchecked, after the Court of International Trade on Sept. 8 denied the government’s bid to dismiss portions of the case. Kent International says CBP defied its own established practice and did not afford Kent the same treatment given to other importers when it classified entries of Kent’s WeeRide Kangaroo child bicycle seats in heading 8417, dutiable at 10 percent, rather than a duty-free provision of subheading 9401.80. Though CBP had issued Kent a ruling in 2005 that the merchandise was dutiable at the higher rate, it had subsequently granted two of Kent’s protests and issued several rulings to other importers finding similar merchandise duty-free. The trade court found Kent’s complaint adequately raised questions of whether CBP’s decision to reliquidate subsequent entries at the 10% rate, before its eventual revocation of the other importers’ rulings through Customs Bulletin notices and comment, may have run against the agency’s own established practice and treatment.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 4-10:
An importer of gray market batteries currently embroiled in a customs lawsuit with Duracell cannot use an anonymous pseudonym to protect itself from trademark suits in other courts, the Court of International Trade said in a decision issued Sept. 12. Recently having ruled that the anonymous “XYZ Corporation” can challenge Duracell’s lever rule protections against gray market imports (see 1707240031), the court held the company must give up its pseudonym and file a new complaint with its true identity.
The Commerce Department didn't "adequately discuss the record evidence" submitted in support of Agilent's position in a scope ruling on mass filter radiators made by Agilent Technologies, the Court of International Trade said in a Sept. 1 ruling. The MFRs were the subject of a scope ruling last year (see 1608220063), in which Commerce said the products are subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China. Commerce must reconsider the issue as a result of the CIT decision.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 28 - Sept. 3:
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 29 upheld a Commerce Department scope ruling finding “hybrid” solar panels are subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells from China. The court agreed with the agency’s ruling that the addition of “thin film” to a crystalline silicon substrate does not exempt Sunpreme’s solar cells from AD and CV duties. However, the court directed Commerce to issue new liquidation instructions, finding the agency improperly ordered CBP to suspend liquidation prior to the beginning of the scope inquiry.
No new lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 21-27, nor were any appeals of Court of International Trade decisions filed that week at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to the CIT and CAFC Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) filing databases.
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 23 ordered a Texas company and its owner to pay a penalty for negligent misstatements on import documentation, though at a level far below what the government requested. Neither Deladiep or its owner and sole corporate officer John Delatorre appeared in court to defend themselves, but CIT nonetheless cut the penalty by 80 percent to $17,548.12, finding the violation of 19 USC 1592 did not warrant the $87,740.60 maximum.