In UPS Customhouse Brokerage, Inc., v. U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the Court of International Trade that UPS had misclassified certain merchandise under HTS 8473.30.90, but the CAFC invalidated the CIT's holding concerning Customs' determination that UPS did not exercise responsible supervision and control under 19 USC 1641.
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 Polly U.S.A., Inc. et al, v. U.S., the Court of International Trade upheld Customs' decision to deny Polly's claim for a trade preference under the African Growth and Opportunity Act, due to deficiencies and discrepancies in production documentation submitted to support the claim.
The following Court of International Trade cases on antidumping and countervailing duty issues were dated or decided in July 2009.
In Michael Simon Design, Inc. and Target Stores, et. al., v. U.S., the Court of International Trade dismissed a challenge to changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule which initially were recommended by the International Trade Commission and ultimately given legal effect on February 3, 2007 by a Presidential Proclamation.
In Target Corporation, v. U.S., the Court of International Trade upheld the International Trade Administration's final affirmative circumvention determination on remand that mixed-wax candles were later-developed merchandise covered by the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from China.
The Court of International Trade has determined that the International Trade Administration erred when it excluded from the scope of six antidumping duty determinations and resulting orders for certain frozen warmwater shrimp, frozen shrimp coated with flour known as "dusted shrimp1."
The following Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and Court of International Trade cases on antidumping and countervailing duty issues were dated or decided in the second half of June 2009.
On June 16, 2009, the Court of International Trade ruled in Gilda Industries, Inc. vs. U.S., that the authority for the collection of the 100% beef hormone duties imposed on certain products from the European Union expired on July 29, 2007, when the domestic beef industry failed to timely file a request with the government to continue the duties.
In Value Vinyls, Inc. v. U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision by the Court of International Trade that certain plastic-coated material, whose textile component is made entirely of man-made fibers, should be classified under subheading 3921.90.11 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule with a duty rate of 4.2 percent.
The Court of International Trade has ordered the retroactive refund of 100% duties paid by Gilda Industries, Inc. on imports of toasted bread from Spain, as the authority for the collection of these duties lapsed on July 29, 2007.