The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 3-9.
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 will allow a customs broker test-taker to proceed with a challenge to his failing grade, denying a motion to dismiss from the government that argued his case didn’t meet procedural requirements. Byungmin Chae’s delay in appealing to the trade court was caused in part by CBP’s own misleading statements, and his early missteps in the case before hiring a lawyer should not bar him from a hearing in court, CIT said in a decision May 7.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 26 - May 2:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 26 upheld a recent lower court ruling that found an active pharmaceutical ingredient imported by Janssen Ortho eligible for duty-free treatment. In line with a February 2020 Court of International Trade decision, the Federal Circuit found darunavir ethanolate, the active ingredient in a Janssen HIV medication, is encompassed by a listing in the tariff schedule's Pharmaceutical Appendix for darunavir.
The Court of International Trade's newest judge, Stephen Vaden, issued his first opinion with the court on April 21, dismissing tire importer Strategic Import Supply's challenge of CBP's assessment of countervailing duties on its imports of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. Vaden found that the importer's protest was filed too late, holding the 180-day deadline for protests runs from the date of liquidation, rather than the date CBP received updated assessment instructions from Commerce after Commerce amended rates set in the relevant CV duty administrative review.
CBP's process for carrying out Enforce and Protect Act investigations could eventually be found by the courts to be unconstitutional, trade lawyers Jen Diaz and David Craven of Diaz Trade Law said during an April 21 webinar. The EAPA investigations, which seek to determine if a company evaded antidumping or countervailing duty orders, are mostly secret and do not inform entities if they are being investigated or what evidence stands against them.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 12-18:
Following a Court of International Trade opinion throwing the future of first sale import valuations from non-market economies (NMEs) into question (see 2103020040), KPMG released recommendations for U.S. importers who use the valuation practice. One recommendation in the tax firm's April 19 analysis is to establish a “reasonable care” file in which to file commercial documentation and financial statements to demonstrate compliance with first sale requirements. Importers should also determine which party can best represent the firm in the product's supply chain for the “all costs plus a profit” test for first sale valuations. The rationale for that decision should also be filed in the reasonable care folder, KPMG said.
The Court of International Trade found that New York-based importer NYWL Enterprises is on the hook for over $4 million in unpaid duties and civil penalties after the court found the importer knowingly misclassified its entries of Siamese coaxial cable from China. In an April 16 decision, Chief Judge Mark Barnett ordered NYWL to pay the U.S. $379,665.83 in unpaid duties and a civil penalty of $3.76 million plus post-judgment interest, and costs.” The U.S. had alleged fraudulent violations of 19 USC 1592, which Barnett accepted as true after NYWL failed to defend itself.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed a Washington importer's claim that its products were unfairly denied entry to the U.S., finding instead that the case belonged in the Court of International Trade. Judge Thomas Zilly, in an April 16 order, ruled that CIT has exclusive jurisdiction for such claims as the one Keirton USA Inc. brought to the district court. “CBP argues that the Court of International Trade ('CIT') has exclusive jurisdiction over this action,” Zilly wrote. “The Court agrees.”