Preparing scrap metal for export is not a "process of manufacture." In Washington International Insurance Company v. U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the Court of International Trade's (CIT's) decision that testing, sorting, sizing, and packaging scrap metal in the U.S. prior to export for manufacture into stainless steel sheets, does not qualify as a "manufacturing process" for the duty exemption provided in TSUS 806.30.
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 Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA) has issued a notice announcing that it has resumed its consideration of whether to implement safeguard quotas based on "threat of" market disruption for China-origin textiles and apparel in the following individual or merged categories:
CAFC denies challenge to CHB exam answer. In Michael J. Kenny v. Secretary of the Treasury & U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the Court of International Trade's (CIT's) decision to uphold the Secretary of the Treasury's denial of credit to Michael J. Kenny for Question 32 on the October 2001 Customs Broker Licensure Examination (CHB exam).
On April 27, 2005, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an order in USA-ITA v. U.S., et. al. which lifted the Court of International Trade's (CIT) preliminary injunction that has prevented the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA) from considering, accepting or taking any further action on any China safeguard petitions based on the threat of market disruption.
The International Trade Commission (ITC) has posted to its Web site its preliminary report for its investigation (No. 1205-6) on proposed modifications to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS), which are scheduled to become effective in January 2007.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has issued a report entitled, U.S.-China Trade: Textile Safeguard Procedures Should be Improved.
The International Trade Administration (ITA) has issued a notice which again amends the final results of its antidumping (AD) duty administrative review for tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished or unfinished from China for the review period of June 1, 1998 - May 31, 1999, as there is now a final and conclusive court decision.
The International Trade Administration (ITA) has issued a notice amending the final results of its countervailing (CV) duty administrative review, as there is now a final and conclusive court decision regarding the Court of International Trade (CIT) affirmation of the ITA's redetermination upon remand.
In Structural Industries, Inc. v. U.S., the Court of International Trade (CIT), upon remand from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), determined that three sizes of "Euro clip" picture frames, which consist of a flat glass cover, a masonite back, and four metal clips are classifiable under HTS 4414.00.0000 (3.9%), as wooden frames for paintings, photographs, mirrors or similar objects.
On March 18, 2005, the Court of International Trade (CIT), among other things, denied the U.S. government's request that it dismiss with respect to jurisdictional issues a complaint filed by the U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel (USA-ITA) that seeks review of CITA's decision to consider "threat-based" China textile safeguard petitions. The CIT also deferred ruling on the U.S.' motion to dismiss the case because of substantive claims.