Court Cases Affecting International Trade
Customs Not in Contempt for Revoking is Approval for the "Duty-free" Sale of Fuels.In Ammex, Inc. v. U.S., the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the Court of International Trade's (CIT's) denial of Ammex's motion to hold Customs in contempt because it revoked approval of the sale of gasoline and diesel fuel on a duty- and tax-free basis at the Ambassador Bridge between Detroit, MI and Windsor, Canada.
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.
Customs issued a letter in September 2000 granting Ammex's request to expand its Class 9 duty-free warehouse operation to include the duty-free sale of gasoline and diesel fuel. However, Customs later determined that it could not lawfully permit Ammex to sell gasoline and diesel fuel on a duty- and tax-free basis because the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued an informational letter stating that the IRS Code (26 USC 4081) imposes a tax on the entry into the U.S. of any taxable fuel, including gasoline and diesel fuel for consumption, use, or warehousing.
(The CAFC explains that for duty free sales enterprises, the term "duty-free" merchandise means merchandise on which neither Federal duty nor Federal tax has been assessed pending exportation from the customs territory (19 USC 1555(b)(8)(E)). (See ITT's Online Archives or 04/12/02 news, 02041615, for BP summary of CIT's ruling on this Customs contempt issue.) (Decision no. 02-1498, decided 07/01/03, available at http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1498.html )
CIT Upholds CBP's Denial of Joint Classification/NAFTA Claim Protest. In Corrpro Companies, Inc. v. U.S., the CIT ruled in favor of U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP's) denial of Corrpro's joint protest under 19 USC 1520(d) and 1520(c) regarding the classification/reclassification of, and NAFTA eligibility for, magnesium anodes.
The CIT ruled that Corrpro's NAFTA protest under 19 USC 1520(d) was invalid as it did not file NAFTA certificates of origin with such protest. The CIT then ruled that Corrpro's protest under 19 USC 1520(c) was valid as it was filed within one year of the date of liquidation. However, the CIT ruled that CBP's reclassification of the merchandise was a mistake of law, and not a 1520(c) clerical error or mistake of fact.
(Corrpro had asserted that the proper classification of the anodes was MX 8543.38.00 (a NAFTA provision). CBP had first classified the anodes under 8104.19.00 (a non-NAFTA provision), and then reclassified them under 8543.30.00 (a NAFTA provision). (Slip Op. 03-59, dated 06/04/03, available at http://www.cit.uscourts.gov/slip_op/slip_op03/Slip-Op%2003-59.pdf)