Jacob Kopnick

The Court of International Trade's newest judge, Stephen Vaden, issued his first opinion with the court on April 21, dismissing tire importer Strategic Import Supply's challenge of CBP's assessment of countervailing duties on its imports of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. Vaden found that the importer's protest was filed too late, holding the 180-day deadline for protests runs from the date of liquidation, rather than the date CBP received updated assessment instructions from Commerce after Commerce amended rates set in the relevant CV duty administrative review.

CBP's process for carrying out Enforce and Protect Act investigations could eventually be found by the courts to be unconstitutional, trade lawyers Jen Diaz and David Craven of Diaz Trade Law said during an April 21 webinar. The EAPA investigations, which seek to determine if a company evaded antidumping or countervailing duty orders, are mostly secret and do not inform entities if they are being investigated or what evidence stands against them.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 12-18:

Following a Court of International Trade opinion throwing the future of first sale import valuations from non-market economies (NMEs) into question (see 2103020040), KPMG released recommendations for U.S. importers who use the valuation practice. One recommendation in the tax firm's April 19 analysis is to establish a “reasonable care” file in which to file commercial documentation and financial statements to demonstrate compliance with first sale requirements. Importers should also determine which party can best represent the firm in the product's supply chain for the “all costs plus a profit” test for first sale valuations. The rationale for that decision should also be filed in the reasonable care folder, KPMG said.

The Court of International Trade found that New York-based importer NYWL Enterprises is on the hook for over $4 million in unpaid duties and civil penalties after the court found the importer knowingly misclassified its entries of Siamese coaxial cable from China. In an April 16 decision, Chief Judge Mark Barnett ordered NYWL to pay the U.S. $379,665.83 in unpaid duties and a civil penalty of $3.76 million plus post-judgment interest, and costs.” The U.S. had alleged fraudulent violations of 19 USC 1592, which Barnett accepted as true after NYWL failed to defend itself.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed a Washington importer's claim that its products were unfairly denied entry to the U.S., finding instead that the case belonged in the Court of International Trade. Judge Thomas Zilly, in an April 16 order, ruled that CIT has exclusive jurisdiction for such claims as the one Keirton USA Inc. brought to the district court. “CBP argues that the Court of International Trade ('CIT') has exclusive jurisdiction over this action,” Zilly wrote. “The Court agrees.”

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 5-11:

CBP did not liquidate imports of wooden bedroom furniture from China past a key six-month time limit, the U.S. Court of International Trade found in an April 9 opinion. Ruling in favor of the U.S. government, Chief Judge Mark Barnett found that CBP properly liquidated the furniture entries within six months of being notified by a message from Commerce that an injunction against the entries' liquidation was lifted. Barnett also found that the agency's reliquidation of another entry from importer Aspects Furniture International, following the entry's deemed liquidation without a notice to the importer, did not violate the pre-2016 version of the reliquidation statute.

Christopher Kane, partner at Simon Gluck, expressed optimism over a recent U.S. Court of International Trade ruling striking down an extension of President Donald Trump's Section 232 tariffs to aluminum and steel derivatives (see 2104050049). He believes the ruling spells good news for the massive litigation involving more than 3,700 companies challenging the expansion of the Section 301 tariffs on goods from China. Although based on a different law, Kane believes CIT's April 5 ruling demonstrates the court's willingness to hold the president to account over laws and regulations. In the case of the derivatives, the tariff expansion was eliminated because it was imposed after a 105-day period during which the president can impose Section 232 tariffs after receiving a report on the need for the duties from the Commerce Department.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 29 - April 4: