The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Oct. 16-22:
A New York federal court recently ordered S’well Bottle to allow an importer to bring in water bottles that S’well alleges infringe its trademarks. ETS Express faces irreparable injury from CBP’s detention of its shipments in search of the allegedly counterfeit water bottles, and it’s unclear whether S’well’s trademarks are even enforceable, the Southern New York U.S. District Court said in a decision issued Oct. 10. The court also denied S’well’s request that ETS post a bond for future entries of the water bottles.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Oct. 9-15:
RANCHO MIRAGE, Calif. -- CBP is working on a standardized process for customs brokers to vet their importer clients' powers of attorney, said Julia Peterson, chief of CBP's broker management branch, at the Western Cargo Conference (WESCCON) on Oct. 13. Every importer will be required to provide the same information, and every broker required to vet the same information, which should “level the playing field” and diminish or eliminate “broker shopping,” Peterson said.
RANCHO MIRAGE, Calif. -- CBP is “currently on schedule” with its development of ACE drawback capabilities set for deployment in February, Acting CBP Commissioner Kevin McAleenan said Oct. 13 at the Western Cargo Conference (WESCCON). The agency is “planning success but will have a back-up plan” for any hiccups associated with the drawback deployment, and will share any contingency plans with the trade community this fall, he said.
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 10 dismissed a challenge to the timeliness of a CBP demand for payment from a surety related to an importer’s unpaid antidumping duties on preserved mushrooms from China. Hartford Fire Insurance argued the six-year and 30-day deadlines for CBP’s demand ran out because it should have been calculated from the date of deemed liquidation in 2006, not from the date CBP actually liquidated the entries in 2011. CIT found it did not have jurisdiction over the case because the issue should have been raised in a protest and challenged in a denied protest lawsuit under 28 USC 1581(a), not under CIT’s “residual” jurisdiction under 28 USC 1581(i).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Oct. 2-8:
Software developers and customs brokers expressed concerns over the upcoming Dec. 9 deployment of statements in ACE, on an Oct. 6 conference call hosted by the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America. Though software developers reported that programming has been largely completed for some time, they said CBP needs to quickly issue transition guidelines and fallback procedures, especially given the widespread impact any issues with statements would have on trade.
With CBP regulations on new drawback procedures still not issued, software developers are growing concerned about whether they will be ready for the new system’s upcoming deployment in ACE. CBP has pledged to have capabilities in place for the new Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act drawback provisions on Feb. 24, but though the agency has found funding and begun its own programming efforts, software developers have been unable to start coding, leaving little time for testing before the deadline, several developers said in interviews.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 25 - Oct. 1: