The Court of International Trade (CIT) and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) made the following antidumping and countervailing duty law determinations in the first half of August 2010.
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.
In Aromont USA Inc., v. U.S., the Court of International Trade determined that certain food flavorings (derived from veal, chicken, duck, lamb, beef, fish, lobster, mushroom or vegetable stock), imported from France should not be classified as soups or broths, but instead as unfinished food preparations, principally used as ingredients in gravies, sauces, and salad dressings.
The Congressional Research Service has issued a report entitled “Trade Law: An Introduction to Selected International Agreements and U.S. Laws,” which provides an introductory overview of the legal framework governing trade-related measures.
The Court of International Trade rejected the International Trade Administration’s approach to combined antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) tariffs on imports from non-market economies, and ordered the agency to forego imposing CVDs on off-the-road (OTR) tires from China. The ruling is likely to mean lower combined rates in the future for diverse imports from China and other non-market economy countries1 that are subject to both types of trade remedy tariffs.
On July 1, 2010, U.S. Customs and Border Protection sent a letter to the International Trade Commission requesting that the ITC commence a Section 1205 investigation1 regarding the possible addition of a new Chapter 98 duty-free provision for certain utilitarian festive articles.
The Court of International Trade (CIT) and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) made the following antidumping and countervailing duty law determinations in the second half of July 2010.
In Ford Motor Company, v. U.S. et al., the Court of International Trade denied Ford’s request to liquidate and refund duties paid on ten reconciliation entries of imported Jaguar brand vehicles. The CIT dismissed all of Ford’s claims on grounds ranging from lack of case or controversy, lack of jurisdiction, mootness, or in some instances, at the Court’s discretion.
The Court of International Trade and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit made the following antidumping and countervailing duty law determinations in the first half of July 2010.
In Delphi Petroleum, Inc., v. U.S., the Court of International Trade ruled that Customs had not acted in bad faith by failing to extend the statutory time limit for filing Delphi’s drawback claims under 19 USC 1313(r)(1) and denied Delphi’s motion for attorneys’ fees¹ pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 USC 2412.
In Applied Biosystems (a division of Applera Corporation), v. U.S., the Court of International Trade granted summary judgment affirming Customs and Border Protection’s classification of certain thermal cyclers under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8419.89.95, at 4.2 % ad valorem, which includes “machinery, plant or laboratory equipment…for treatment of materials by a process involving a change in temperature” and not under heading 9032.89.60 at 1.7% ad valorem, which covers “automatic regulating or controlling instruments and apparatus”.