Women’s trousers imported by Lockhart Textiles that are made from a yarn that includes metal nanopowders are classifiable as trousers of synthetic fibers, rather than of “other textile materials,” the Court of International Trade said in a May 29 decision. Directly addressing the central issue of a series of cases on Best Key yarn that skirted it over five years ago (see 1502030060), CIT found the yarn used to make the trousers is not classifiable as “metalized yarn” of heading 5605.
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 Office of the U.S. Trade Representative issued a statement late on May 27 criticizing a Court of International Trade decision issued that day that kept in place an injunction barring the withdrawal of an exemption for bifacial panels from Section 201 safeguard duties on solar cells (see 2005270025). “Today, Judge Katzmann of the Court of International Trade blocked USTR from closing the bifacial panel exception. USTR strongly disagrees with Judge Katzmann’s analysis,” the statement said. “The solar industry and the jobs it represents are important to this country, and USTR will take all necessary and appropriate steps to ensure that its safeguard relief is effective.”
The termination of an exemption from solar safeguard duties for bifacial solar panels will not yet proceed, after the Court of International Trade on May 27 refused to dissolve an injunction blocking its withdrawal, despite the government’s claims that a recent request for comments resolved the court’s concerns.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 18-24:
A marine wildlife conservation group and its New Zealand branch filed suit at the Court of International Trade May 21, seeking a ban on imports of fish and fishery products from New Zealand caught using techniques that they say have driven the Maui dolphin to near extinction. Sea Shepherd and Sea Shepherd New Zealand say the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration improperly denied a 2019 petition for a ban under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. They say the use of gillnet and trawl nets in the waters around New Zealand have caused the numbers of the Maui dolphin to dwindle from 2,000 in 1970 to just 57 dolphins in 2016. The lawsuit requests that CIT issue a lawsuit banning imports of all fish or fish products caught in, or derived from, New Zealand commercial fisheries that use gillnets or trawl nets that result in the incidental kill or incidental serious injury of Maui dolphins.
The Court of International Trade on May 18 again held that CBP plays a central role in the Section 337 exclusion order enforcement process, reiterating its earlier decision that exclusions may be protestable and challenged at the trade court (see 2003040057).
Jewelry boxes imported by The Kalencom Corporation have an “outer surface of sheeting of plastics,” and carry a higher duty rate than paper jewelry boxes, the Court of International Trade said in a May 18 decision. Though the boxes are made of paper, the plastic films applied to that paper form the outer surface, and constitute “sheeting” despite their thinness, CIT said, over Kalencom’s objections.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 11-17:
A penalty action against an alleged importer of prohibited HID headlight conversion kits will proceed, after the Court of International Trade on May 15 denied Kevin Ho’s motion to dismiss the case against him. Ho claimed he never received a final penalty notice, as is required before the government seeks to collect penalties in court, but CIT found that CBP delivered the notice to two of Ho’s known addresses, and that under the “mailbox rule,” that Ho is presumed to have received it.
CBP will begin processing refunds for some substitution drawback claims involving internal revenue taxes, after the Court of International Trade on May 15 denied the government’s motion to stay its recent decision invalidating portions of CBP’s drawback regulations, pending an appeal to the Federal Circuit.