Importer Fine Emeralds will get refunds for duties paid on its rough, unworked emerald stones, the company announced in a stipulated judgment filed on Dec. 9 at the Court of International Trade. While the emeralds were assessed 10.5% duties under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7103.10.40, the government agreed to classify the products under subheading 7103.10.20, free of duty. Fine Emeralds' preferred subheading covers uncorked precious stones (Fine Emeralds v. U.S., CIT # 20-03928).
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.
Chinese-origin countertop importer Superior Commercial Solutions argued Dec. 6 it hadn’t waived its challenge to the CBP regulation that allows it to initiate Enforce and Protect Act investigations based on a petition’s “date of receipt,” which is determined by the agency (Superior Commercial Solutions v. United States, CIT # 24-00052).
Various U.S. manufacturers dropped a pair of cases at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 5, following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision finding that the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 doesn't require payouts of interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest, to affected domestic producers (see 2407150031). The appellate court said earlier this year that the act doesn't require delinquency interest payments but only payments of interest that's "earned" on antidumping and countervailing duties and "assessed" under the associated AD or CVD order. The two cases -- one led by Novolex, doing business as Hilex Poly Co. and the other by Bassett Furniture Industries -- had been stayed pending the outcome of the lead case (Bassett Furniture Industries v. U.S., CIT # 19-00073) (Novolex d/b/a Hilex Poly Co. v. U.S., CIT # 19-00074).
The U.S. opposed Canadian lumber exporters' bid to get the court to clarify its instruction to CBP to "discontinue ... the collection of" cash deposits made on entries brought in before a prior Court of International Trade decision, which said it wasn't equitable to subject the companies' exports to the countervailing duty order on Canadian softwood lumber (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, CIT # 19-00122).
Glycine producer Deer Park Glycine said Dec. 3 that the Court of International Trade does have jurisdiction under section 1581(c), or alternatively 1581(i), to hear its challenge of the Commerce Department’s rejection of Deer Park’s “duplicative” scope ruling request (Deer Park Glycine v. U.S., CIT # 24-00016).
Court-ordered reliquidations aren't actions taken by CBP and can't be protested, the government said in oral arguments held Dec. 6 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. As a result, the Federal Circuit doesn't have jurisdiction to hear Target's appeal of a liquidation ordered by CIT, the U.S. said (Target v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2274).
Importer Incase Design Corp. settled four customs cases on its iPad or tablet covers, securing a 5.3% duty rate for the goods, which were originally assessed at 17.6%. Filing four stipulated judgments at the Court of International Trade, Incase said the U.S. agreed to liquidate the covers under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 3926.90.99 after originally liquidating the goods under subheading 4202.92.90. The importer will receive refunds for excess duties paid on its goods (Incase Design Corp. v. U.S., CIT #'s 14-00102, 14-00299, 15-00144, 16-00026).
Importer AM/NS Calvert and the U.S. settled the company's case challenging the rejection of its 12 requests for Section 232 steel tariff exclusions, the parties told the Court of International Trade on Dec. 4. Under the settlement, CBP will refund duties paid on 20 entries of the company's steel slab imports, and the company will abandon its claim for refunds on another 16 of its slab entries. The settlement came as the result of court-led mediation before Judge Leo Gordon. The parties said they reached an agreement in principle to settle the case in February, pending a review of Calvert's import data (see 2404120043) (AM/NS Calvert v. U.S., CIT # 21-00005).
An importer of dried seaweed brought a complaint Dec. 4 to the Court of International Trade challenging the reclassification of its seaweed “for the first time in 37 years” (Takaokaya USA v. United States, CIT # 24-00213).
A 2012 analysis memorandum from a prior antidumping duty determination should be put on the record of a suit on an anti-circumvention proceeding, the Court of International Trade held on Dec. 5. Granting the government's motion to complete the administrative record, Judge Stephen Vaden dubbed the spat "pedantic" and said the record "should be supplemented."