A furniture importer's argument that the Enforce and Protect Act investigation finding it guilty of antidumping duty evasion was unconstitutional is not valid since the importer does not have a protectable interest, the Department of Justice said in a July 9 brief in the Court of International Trade. Since a protectable interest is necessary to claim a due process violation has been committed, Aspects Furniture International's constitutional arguments against the EAPA process fall flat, DOJ said (Aspects Furnitre International, Inc. v. United States, CIT #20-03824).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated July 8 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
A selling agent working as intermediary between European wineries and U.S. wine wholesalers has enough of a financial interest to be the importer of record, CBP said in a June 30 ruling. Quality Brand Imports requested a ruling from CBP on whether it is able to serve as the IOR even though it never acts as a buyer or takes ownership of the goods, acting only as a facilitator.in the import and sales process.
Two importers of steel grating from China didn't declare the goods as subject to antidumping and countervailing duty orders as required, CBP said in a recently posted notice of determination. CBP made the determination following an allegation from Hog Slat that prompted an investigation into Ikadan System USA and Weihai Gaosai Metal Product under the Enforce and Protect Act. The investigation involved entries of "galvanized steel Tri-Bar Floor product (tribar floors), composed of rolled steel rods welded to another steel cross rod (i.e., a product of two or more pieces of steel joined together by assembly)," CBP said.
Among the recent plethora of lawsuits filed in the Court of International Trade challenging the constitutionality of the Enforce and Protect Act process for investigating evasion of antindumping and countervailing duty orders (see 2106070011), at least one invokes the Eighth Amendment, a rarely litigated part of the U.S. Constitution. Filed by trade lawyer David Craven on behalf of Global Aluminum Distributor, the lawsuit challenges EAPA penalties based on the amendment's prohibition on excessive fines.
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated July 2 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
In the June 30 Customs Bulletin (Vol. 55, No. 25), CBP published a proposal to modify rulings on plastic leg coverings.
CBP released its July 7 Customs Bulletin (Vol. 55, No. 26), which includes the following ruling actions:
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated July 2 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.