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:
The Court of International Trade found that President Donald Trump violated procedural time limits when expanding Section 232 tariffs to steel and aluminum “derivatives,” in an April 5 decision granting refunds to steel nail importer PrimeSource Building Products. Judges Timothy Stanceu and Jennifer Choe-Groves, as part of a three-judge panel, struck down the tariff expansion, ruling that the president exceeded his authority to impose tariffs when he elected to extend them to derivative products. Judge M. Miller Baker, the remaining judge on the panel, dissented from the opinion.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 22-28:
CBP incorrectly reversed its own Enforce and Protect Act determination that an importer evaded antidumping duties on frozen warmwater shrimp from India, a U.S. shrimp industry group said in a complaint filed at the Court of International Trade March 23. The Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee (AHSTEC), made up of shrimp producers and wholesalers, said CBP should have stuck with its original finding that Minh Phu transshipped Indian shrimp through Vietnam, in part because the exporter did not provide enough information on its supply chain.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 15-21: