Trade Law Daily is a service of Warren Communications News.
Subscriber Login

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.

to
articlessource documents
Refine Topic Search
Clear Terms

Search Primer

Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.

Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "surrogate value").

Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead. (e.g., CIT).

Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., CBP +ruling).

Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., ruling -NY).

Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls") or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").

CIT Decision Could Change AD Rate for China Steel Cylinder Exporter
September 10, 2014 by Brian Feito|Penalties and Courts

Antidumping duty rates set for an exporter of high pressure steel cylinders from China may change, after the Court of International Trade on Sept. 9 told the Commerce Department to rethink the method it used to calculate Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Ltd.’s rate from the original investigation. Commerce had calculated a 6.62% AD duty rate for Beijing Tianhai in its final determination (see 12062112), but the court took issue with the agency’s use of an alternate method that included zeroing in order to counteract “targeted dumping.” CIT put off deciding the zeroing issue while Commerce decides whether it still wants to use the alternate method at all. Commerce’s redetermination is due in January.

Topics:Court of International Trade
Davidson Nomination as CIT Judge Goes to Senate
September 9, 2014 by Brian Dabbs|White House

President Barack Obama sent to the Senate on Sept. 8 the nomination of Jeanne Davidson as a judge on the Court of International Trade, the White House said. Davidson currently serves as director of the International Trade Field Office in the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Civil Division at the Justice Department, as well as the offices of Foreign Litigation and International Legal Assistance. Obama revealed his intent to nominate Davidson in mid-August (see 14081821).

Topics:Court of International Trade
CIT Dismisses Late Liquidation Challenge, Says Importers Have Duty to Monitor Entries
September 9, 2014 by Brian Feito|Penalties and Courts

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 8 dismissed an importer’s challenge to CBP’s liquidation of entries subject to antidumping duties. Carbon Activated, an importer of activated carbon, said the entries were improperly liquidated and should have still been subject to suspension of liquidation. It argued the deadline for filing suit ran from the date it found out about the errant liquidations four years later. But CIT, holding that as an importer Carbon Activated was required to keep tabs on the status of its entries, said the company should have seen the liquidation, filed a protest within 180 days, and challenged the denied protest. With the relevant deadlines long past, the court found it couldn’t hear the case.

Topics:Court of International Trade
CIT Orders Mediation in Misclassification Penalty Suit Over Government Objection
September 4, 2014 by Brian Feito|Penalties and Courts

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 2 granted an importer’s request for referral to mediation of a misclassification penalty claim, despite objections from the government. Tenacious Holdings, formerly known as Ergodyne Corp., asked for “court-annexed mediation” to settle the case. The government opposed, arguing that Tenacious had only filed the request to avoid a deadline to provide certain documents in discovery. CIT decided that there is no downside to mediation in the case, and it may be the best way to resolve the dispute given the small dollar amount at issue.

Topics:Court of International Trade