Changes to reliquidation procedures recently enacted by Congress don’t affect reliquidations that occurred before the law took effect in 2016, the Court of International Trade said in a court decision released to the public on May 31 (here). The deadline for any reliquidations before the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act was signed into law on Feb. 24, 2016, is 90 days after notice of liquidation is given to the importer, not 90 days after the liquidation itself, it 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 May 30 (here) denied a surety’s challenge to CBP’s extensions of liquidation on several entries while the agency conducted NAFTA verifications. International Fidelity Insurance contended that CBP’s investigation, which eventually found the textile entries did not qualify for NAFTA treatment, was rife with unreasonable delays, and that the entries it bonded should have been deemed liquidated because the extensions of liquidation were not justified. But finding CBP’s investigation “continual, if not consistent,” the court found CBP’s decisions to extend were based on well-founded agency policy.
Interest on past due customs duties and fees are subject to the same protest and judicial challenge procedures as those for any other duty or fee, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said on May 26 (here). Affirming a Court of International Trade ruling from August 2015 (see 1508200013), the appeals court held that, because interest on past due bills is protestable, American Home Assurance Company (AHAC) waived its right to challenge CBP’s interest calculations because it did not file a court challenge on a denied protest of the interest by the applicable deadline.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 22-28:
Tina Potuto Kimble resigned as clerk of the Court of International Trade as of July 14, she said. Kimble will move to Tata Steel Europe, where she will be deputy director for U.S. governmental and regulatory affairs. CIT posted an ad for the soon-to-be vacant clerk of court position (here).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 15-21:
Compression arm-sleeves and gauntlets imported by Sigvaris qualify for special duty-free tariff provisions for articles designed for use by the handicapped, but the company’s imported compression hosiery does not, the Court of International Trade said in a decision issued May 17 (here). The arm-sleeves and gauntlets are meant for use by people with upper-limb lymphedema, which is a physical handicap because it limits a person’s ability to care for themselves or perform manual tasks. The hosiery, on the other hand, is meant for people suffering from the early stages of chronic venous disease, which may cause discomfort but does not limit the person’s life activities, CIT said.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 8-14:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 1-7:
The Court of International Trade on May 5 imposed the maximum allowable penalty on an importer and its executive for misclassifying entries of sugar (here). The now-defunct International Trading Services (ITS) and its President, CEO and managing member Julio Lorza will pay $295,655.77 in unpaid duties and a penalty of $691,311.54 for negligently misrepresenting that the sugar qualified for a tariff provision dutiable at about 3 cents per kilogram when it was actually dutiable at a rate of about 35 cents. The court’s decision was partially the result of Lorza’s and ITS’s failure to respond to the government’s penalty motion.