The Court of International Trade has ruled in U.S. v. Trek Leather Inc., and Harish Shadadpuri that an importer of record along with its sole shareholder committed gross negligence by consistently failing to include the cost of fabric assists in the price actually paid or payable in their entry documents for men's suits imported into the U.S. The defendants were also found liable for unpaid customs duties and civil penalties, plus interest.
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.
On June 16, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overruled the lower court and agreed with CamelBak Products LLC that its back-mounted packs are made up of two different components (a hydration component and a storage component), and are "composite goods" that should be classified by the essential character test, because the two applicable subheadings refer to only part of the subject articles. CBP had argued, and the lower court had affirmed, that the items were not "composite goods" and that a single tariff provision applied to the articles in their entirety.
For the antidumping duty administrative review of certain pasta from Italy for the period July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007, the Court of International Trade previously granted a request from the International Trade Administration for a voluntary remand to reconsider whether accounting expenses of Italian producer Pasta Zara SpA were direct or indirect expenses. The court also ordered the ITA to reconsider whether all home market sales, whether to independent retailers or large discount chains, were in fact at a single level of trade, as the ITA claimed.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled, in BenQ America Corporation v. U.S., to vacate a Court of International Trade decision to classify certain Dell™ LCD monitors1 as video monitors under HTS 8528 (5%) as opposed to duty-free automatic data processing (ADP) machines under HTS 8471. The CAFC remands the case to the CIT, which CAFC states should conduct a "principal use" analysis of the monitors to determine their correct classification.
The International Trade Commission has reversed its views and is no longer recommending the addition of a new Chapter 98 U.S. note and amended tariff numbers that would provide duty-free treatment to certain utilitarian textile and other articles that incorporate a festive design, decoration, emblem or motif. U.S. Customs and Border Protection had recommended these changes in light of a 2007 note added to Chapter 95 and an earlier court decision, Michael Simon Design.
The Court of International Trade issued a second remand covering the antidumping duty administrative review of stainless steel bar from India for the February 2005 --January 2006 period, ordering the International Trade Administration to conduct individual examinations of at least two additional respondents, and to recalculate dumping margins for any and all remaining unexamined respondents (the ITA had initially reviewed only two out of eight prospective respondents). The court also ordered the ITA to complete its additional calculations in 300 days, rather than the 365 days the ITA requested, and denied motions by three respondents to withdraw their requests for review. (See ITT’s Online Archives or 12/09/09 news, 09120955, for BP summary of the prior CIT remand decision.) (Slip Op. 11-61, dated 05/26/11)
The Court of International Trade has ruled in Shah Brothers, Inc., v. U.S., that a 2009 amendment to 19 USC 1514 regarding U.S. Customs and Border Protection's tax collection authority over tobacco products, imported gutkha in this case, does not alter CBP's responsibility as the final agency decision-maker, and as a result, jurisdiction is not available under 28 USC 1581(i).
On May 25, 2011, a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee heard testimony from government officials1 on the enforcement of antidumping and countervailing duty laws. Officials stated that over $1 billion in AD/CV duties is uncollected, with most of it from Chinese firms. Changes to the “deemed liquidation” process, the new shipper rules, and the retrospective duty collection system were among the possible fixes discussed.
The Court of International Trade has ruled in U.S. v. American Home Assurance Co. (AHAC), that U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s suspension of liquidation is not invalid if it fails to notify the surety of the suspension.
Mid-Continent Nail Corporation, a domestic producer, challenged a ruling by the International Trade Administration that excluded nails in home tool kits from the scope of the August 1, 2008 AD order on certain steel nails from China. The Court of International Trade found the ITA has applied contradictory approaches in cases where merchandise covered by AD orders is imported in kits with non-covered items.