Recent Court Cases on International Trade for March 3 - 19
The following Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and Court of International Trade cases on international trade issues were dated/decided during March 3 - March 19, 2008:
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
CAFC Remands AD Case to CIT for Review on Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars Produced in Turkey
The CAFC reinstated Gerdau Ameristeel Corp's action for review of an antidumping (AD) order on steel concrete reinforcing bars made in Turkey. The CAFC stated that although Gerdau did not seek to enjoin the liquidation of the entries subject to the review, it had not lost the right to challenge the review when its results affected other substantive matters. (Gerdau Ameristeel Corp., vs. the U.S. et. al., 2007-1143, decided 03/12/08)
CAFC Affirms Classifications by CIT of Chip Placer Machines under 8479.89 and the Feeders under 8479.90
This appeal involved machinery identified as "chip placers," which are used in making a finished printed circuit assembly and "feeders," which are designed to supply electrical components to the chip placers. The CAFC affirmed the judgment of the CIT that chip placer machines were properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheading 8479.89 and the feeders as parts under HTS subheading 8479.90. (Fuji America Corporation, vs. the U.S., 2006-1653, 2007-1177, decided 03/19/08)
CIT Rules on Jurisdictional Motions on Byrd Amendment Case
In this case, a group of eight Louisiana crawfish producers and two domestic bearing producers have made claims that the "support requirement" in the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA), often referred to as the "Byrd Amendment," unlawfully prevented them from being eligible for distributions of funds collected from AD and countervailing (CV) duties. The CIT ruled on the timeliness of their original claims and the application of the certification requirements in complying with the Byrd Amendment. (Pat Huval Restaurant & Oyster Bar, Inc., et al., v. U.S. et al., Slip Op. 08-26, dated 03/03/08)
CIT Rules on the Classification of Certs Mints
Warner-Lambert Company challenged the classification of their products as sugar confectionery under HTS heading 1704. Warner-Lambert claimed the all subject merchandise was identical to the Certs Cool Powerful Mints that the CAFC had previously ruled were properly classified as a preparation for oral or dental hygiene under HTS Heading 3306. The CIT granted summary judgment for classification under HTS Heading 3306 for the mints invoiced as Powerful Mints Spearmint, Peppermint and Spearmint Standards, while denying motion for summary judgment on mints invoiced as Cool Mint Drops. (Warner-Lambert Company v. U.S., Slip Op. 08-31, dated 03/14/08)
CAFC Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars AD case(Gerdau Ameristeel Corp., vs. the U.S. et. al., 2007-1143, decided 03/12/08) available at http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/07-1143.pdf
CAFC Chip Placer Machines case (Fuji America Corporation, vs. the U.S., 2006-1653, 2007-1177, decided 03/19/08) available at http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/06-1653,%2007-1177.pdf
CIT Byrd Amendmentcase (Pat Huval Restaurant & Oyster Bar, Inc., et al., v. U.S. et al., Slip Op. 08-26, dated 03/03/08) available at http://www.cit.uscourts.gov/slip_op/Slip_op08/08-26.pdf
CIT Certs Mints case (Warner-Lambert Company v. U.S., Slip Op. 08-31, dated 03/14/08)available at http://www.cit.uscourts.gov/slip_op/Slip_op08/08-31.pdf