Todd Owen, former executive assistant CBP commissioner who worked in the Office of Field Operations before retiring, said during a March 3 webinar that the trade community should expect to see a lot more traditional customs work over the next few years, such as missed descriptions, undervaluation, duty evasion and import safety. Owen, who is a senior trade adviser at Diaz Trade Law, also said during the webinar that he thinks stopping goods made with forced labor is going to continue to be a priority for the Biden administration. “I don’t see this going away,” he said.
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.
First sale treatment may not be applicable to transactions involving non-market economies, including China, Court of International Trade Senior Judge Thomas Aquilino said in a March 1 decision. In a ruling on cookware imported by Meyer from Thailand and China through a Chinese middleman, the trade court found the involvement of Chinese companies made it difficult to determine whether the transaction was at arm's length and undistorted by non-market influences, as required for first sale valuation. Though he stopped short of saying imports originating in non-market economies could never receive first sale valuation, he called on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to clarify.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 22-28:
Canadian textile company Tricots Liesse 1983 must pay its surety, Aegis Security Insurance, $768,916.53 along with legal fees for a customs bond payment that Aegis made on Tricots' behalf to cover unpaid duties on textile imports. Tricots must reimburse Aegis after Tricots failed to object to Aegis' motion for a quick ruling on the facts of the case, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Feb. 26 summary judgment. While the bond payment amount is not under dispute, Judge Richard Eaton did not accept Aegis' quote for its legal fees and ordered the surety to provide additional evidence of how much it is owed in attorney's fees, costs and expenses. Aegis initially submitted attorney time sheets on Aegis letterhead, claiming over $92,000 in legal fees that the court deemed did not meet the evidentiary standard for reimbursement. The lawyer for Tricots withdrew from the case Sept. 23, 2020.
The Court of International Trade on March 1 issued a decision calling into question the ability to use first sale valuation on transactions involving non-market economies, including China. In a case on cookware imported by Meyer from a Chinese affiliate, CIT Senior Judge Thomas Aquilino held Meyer did not adequately prove that the sales were free of “any distortive nonmarket influences,” as required by a 1992 Federal Circuit decision on first sale involving Nissho Iwai.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 15-21:
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from Feb. 16-19 in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Court of International Trade ordered the Commerce Department to reconsider its determination that certain hardwood plywood with outer veneers of radiata or agathis pine is circumventing antidumping and countervailing duties on hardwood plywood from China. CIT Judge Jane Restani found that Commerce had insufficient evidence to prove that the type of plywood in question was developed after the duties were imposed, in a Feb. 18 decision.
Importers of steel and aluminum could be facing higher antidumping duty rates, after the Court of International Trade ruled Feb. 17 that Section 232 tariffs are a form of normal import duties that should be deducted from foreign exporters' U.S. prices in AD duty rate calculations. The trade court held that, unlike Section 201 safeguard duties and AD/CV duties, which are not deducted, the national security-based Section 232 tariffs have a different purpose unrelated to remediating injury from an import surge or underpriced imports.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb.8-14: