The Court of International Trade on July 13 found an importer negligently misclassified entries of bags for storing cold beverages, despite having consulted its customs broker as to the correct classification (here). Farhan Khan did not exercise reasonable care because he should have consulted other sources after receiving three conflicting suggestions from his broker, and improperly relied on his broker's opinion to classify related but different beverage bags, 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 Court of International Trade on July 11 dismissed a prospective importer's challenge to a recent CBP ruling on the admissibility of marijuana paraphernalia (here). CannaKorp had sought to directly challenge the ruling, which had found importation of its CannaCloud vaporizer illegal despite recent changes to state laws (see 1704100026), by bringing its lawsuit before actually importing the product. CIT found that CannaKorp did not demonstrate it was harmed enough by the ruling to challenge CBP's determination pre-importation.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of July 3-9:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 26 - July 2:
The Court of International Trade is proposing changes (here) to its rules that would eliminate its controversial “Reserve Calendar” and set time limits on CBP’s submission of entry documentation in cases challenging denied protests. Amendments to CIT Rule 83 (here) would replace the Reserve Calendar, where cases may remain indefinitely in 18-month increments, with a new “Customs Case Management Calendar.” There, cases would only be able to remain for four years without action before they are dismissed. Other changes would affect CIT Rules 41 (here), 56.2 (here), 73.1 (here), 82 (here), 83 (here), 84 (here) and 85 (here), Forms 9 (here) and 24 (here), and Specific Instructions for Form 24 (here). Comments are due July 26.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 19-25:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 12-18:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 5-11:
An importer’s conduct in a court case does not affect the amount of penalties that should be assessed for tariff misclassification, the Court of International Trade said in a decision issued June 7 (here). Although the government had sought $324,540 in penalties from Horizon Products International for the importer’s negligent misclassification of its plywood imports in a duty free tariff subheading, CIT instead authorized half that. A “significant penalty” was warranted for “slow-playing the Government,” but failure to cooperate in a court case should instead be addressed by other means, it said.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 29 - June 1: