The Aluminum Association Trade Enforcement Working Group, an antidumping duty petitioner, told the Court of International Trade that a recent CIT decision regarding respondent Assan Aluminyum's duty drawback adjustment is relevant for its case also involving a duty drawback adjustment claim from Assan (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 21-00616).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated May 20-23 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):
Importer King Maker Marketing on May 29 said it will appeal a Court of International Trade decision issued earlier this month finding that a product is "imported" for duty drawback purposes when it's admitted into a foreign-trade zone and not when entered for domestic consumption (see 2505150038). The trade court said the definition of "importation" found in both the dictionary and Supreme Court precedent distinguishes importation from entry, adding that when Congress passed the current drawback statute, it specifically decided that the five-year period in which to make a drawback claims runs from the date of importation and not the date of entry. Due to the ruling, King Maker's case challenging the rejection of its claims for substitution unused merchandise drawback was tossed as untimely (King Maker Marketing v. United States, CIT # 24-00134).
The Commerce Department improperly failed to respond to an antidumping duty petitioner's claim that a submission from AD review respondent Assan Aluminyum regarding its duty drawback adjustment didn't rebut, clarify or correct information submitted in the petitioner's rebuttal, the Court of International Trade held on May 21. Judge Gary Katzmann said Commerce can't pursue the goal of calculating an accurate dumping margin "without regard for procedural constraints."
The Court of International Trade on May 21 remanded the Commerce Department's second remand results in a case on the antidumping duty investigation on common alloy aluminum sheet from Turkey. Judge Gary Katzmann held that Commerce unlawfully failed to respond to an objection from the petitioner, the Aluminum Association Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet Trade Enforcement Working Group, that one of respondent Assan Aluminyum's submissions to the agency on remand contained new information that didn't rebut, clarify or correct information submitted in the petitioner's rebuttal regarding Assan's duty drawback adjustment. Katzmann also held that Commerce unlawfully failed to respond to the petitioner's objection to the agency's reliance on "unverified information" in two of Assan's submissions on remand.
A product is "imported" for duty drawback purposes when it's admitted into a foreign-trade zone and not when entered for domestic consumption, the Court of International Trade held on May 15. Judge Timothy Reif said the definition of "importation" found in both the dictionary and Supreme Court precedent distinguishes importation from entry.
The Court of International Trade on May 15 held that a product is "imported" for duty drawback purposes when it's admitted into a foreign trade zone and not when entered for domestic consumption. Judge Timothy Reif said the definition of "importation" found in both the dictionary and Supreme Court rulings distinguishes "importation" and "entry." The judge added that when Congress passed the current drawback statute, it specifically decided the five-year period to make a drawback claim runs from the date of importation and not the date of entry. As a result, the court dismissed importer King Maker Marketing's case challenging CBP's rejection of its substitution unused merchandise drawback claims for being untimely.
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Apr. 9-25 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):
The three judges assigned to the case challenging President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act -- Jane Restani, Gary Katzmann and Timothy Reif -- may be poised to rein in the administration's use of the act to impose tariffs, various attorneys told us. Based on their prior jurisprudence and professional backgrounds, the attorneys said, it seems likely the trio may pare back Trump's tariff-setting authority, though it's ultimately unclear to what extent.
To date, no major lawsuits challenging any of the new tariff actions taken by President Donald Trump have been filed. The reasons for that include high legal hurdles to success and inconsistency in the implementation of the tariffs, trade lawyers told us.