Domestic producers of honey, mushrooms, garlic and crawfish sued the U.S. government and a number of import sureties, claiming the government failed to collect AD duties and the sureties failed to require sufficient bond guarantees or collect and remit AD duties owed.
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 antidumping or countervailing duty law determinations of the Court of International Trade (CIT) and/or the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) were decided in the second half of March 2010.
The following antidumping or countervailing duty law determinations at the Court of International Trade (CIT) and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) were decided in the first half of March 2010.
In a test case, BenQ America Corporation, v. U.S., the Court of International Trade agreed with Customs, ruling that certain liquid crystal display monitors with a video interface are properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8528.21.70 as video monitors at 5% ad valorem.
The following determinations of the Court of International Trade and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the first half of February 2010 involved antidumping or countervailing duty law.
In LeMans Corporation, v. U.S., the Court of International Trade granted Customs summary judgment, ruling that certain motocross jerseys, pants, and jackets are properly classified in the HTS under Chapter 61 or 62 as wearing apparel and not within Chapter 95 as sports equipment.
In the February 10, 2010 issue of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Bulletin (Vol. 44, No. 7), CBP published a notice proposing to modify two rulings, and revoke one ruling and a treatment as follows:
In the February 10, 2010 issue of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Bulletin (Vol. 44, No. 7), CBP published a notice proposing to revoke two rulings and a treatment as follows:
The following determinations of the Court of International Trade in the second half of January 2010 involved antidumping or countervailing duty law.
In Presitex USA Inc., v. U.S., the Court of International Trade granted a motion to dismiss a case involving apparel imported from Nicaragua during a period when the U.S.-Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act, Trade and Development Act of 2000 (CBTPA) was in effect. The CIT ruled that the Court lacked jurisdiction over Presitex's 19 USC 1520(d) claim and refused to exercise jurisdiction over Presitex's 19 USC 4034 claim which was still under review by Customs.