Court of International Trade Decisions
In Candle Corporation of America (CCA) and Blyth, Inc. v. International Trade Commission (ITC) et al., the Court of International Trade (CIT) determined that a domestic producer that failed to support the antidumping (AD) petition on petroleum wax candles from China is not eligible to collect offset distributions under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (Byrd Amendment).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Company That Failed to Support AD/CV Petition Is Not Eligible for Byrd Amendment Payments
The CIT explains that in order to be an "affected domestic producer" eligible for offset distributions, the Byrd Amendment states that the company must (1) be a petitioner or interested party in support of the petition with respect to which an AD or CV duty order is issued, and (2) remain in operation.
The CIT states that two questionnaires submitted by CCA in the original investigation did not indicate it supported the petition. Therefore, the CIT agrees with the International Trade Commission's determination that CCA does not qualify as an "affected domestic producer" as well as Customs' subsequent denial of CCA's certification request for offset distributions. Moreover, because CCA failed to support the AD petition, the CIT concurs with CBP's determination that CCA is ineligible to claim offset distributions as the successor company of two other firms that had supported the AD petition. (Slip Op. 03-40, decided 04/08/03, available at http://www.cit.uscourts.gov/slip_op/slip_op03/Slip%20Op%2003-40.pdf)
Detailed Evidence Needed to Prove "Interest Fees" are Nondutiable
In Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. U.S., the Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled on the dutiability of "interest fees" Skechers incurred when financing 101 entries of imported footwear.
According to the CIT, Skechers often financed its imported footwear purchases through a combination of letters of credit and delayed payments. Skechers stated that it would typically operate under oral financing agreements with its suppliers whereby it was to pay an "interest" fee every time it deferred full payment on the applicable invoices, in most cases the "interest" rate was 2% of the transaction amount. Skechers explained that it operated under these oral financing agreements with its suppliers for up to two years before these were memorialized in formal written financing agreements.
The CIT states that for the 101 entries in question, Customs' determined that that the transaction value of the imported footwear was the invoice price plus the claimed interest charge, despite Skechers' claim that these payments were not dutiable under 19 USC 1401a because they constituted bona fide interest charges.
The CIT determines that for all but three of the entries at issue in this ruling, Skechers failed to provide evidence containing adequate payment details in order to prove that its written financing arrangements, specifically the claimed "interest fees," satisfied the conditions of T.D. 85-111 entitled "Treatment of Interest Charges in Customs Value of Imported Merchandise." With respect to the three remaining entries, the CIT states that certain material issues of fact need to be resolved, and instructed Customs and Skechers to attempt to resolve these issues. Slip Op. 03-107, dated 08/19/03, available at http://www.cit.uscourts.gov/slip_op/Slip_op03/Slip%20Op%2003-107.pdf)
For a faxed copy (2 pages) of a Customs general notice which clarifies and explains T.D. 85-111, email staff@brokerpower.com