In Ford Motor Company v. U.S., the Court of International Trade denied Ford’s protest of U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s refusal to refund harbor maintenance taxes¹ that Ford allegedly paid on post-July 1, 1990 exports². The CIT stated that Ford had not provided sufficient supporting documentation in its claim for a refund of the HMT.

In Horizon Lines, LLC v. U.S., Horizon challenged a determination by U.S. Customs and Border Protection that certain coatings work performed on its vessel below the waterline is subject to a 50 percent ad valorem duty as a foreign repair under 19 USC 1466(a).¹

On December 13, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 4-4 split decision on an earlier appeals court determination that had ruled against importer, Costco, in a “gray market” copyright infringement case brought by Swiss watchmaker Omega. The Supreme Court "per curiam" ruling was one sentence, stating that "The judgement is affirmed by an equally divided Court."

On December 6, 2010, the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of International Trade’s determination that the government owed Horizon Lines, LLC a refund for duties imposed on certain work performed on the ocean carrier Hawaii while the ship was overseas.

The Court of International Trade (CIT) made the following antidumping and countervailing duty law determinations in the second half of November 2010.

The Court of International Trade (CIT) made the following antidumping and countervailing duty law determinations in the first half of November 2010.

The Court of International Trade has dismissed All Tools’ complaints in All Tools, Inc. v. U.S., in which All Tools argued the deadline for filing its lawsuit seeking an order to reclassify certain paint brushes was “equitably tolled” because U.S. Customs and Border Protection had not issued a protest number in a timely manner.

In U.S. v. Callanish Ltd., the Court of International Trade ruled that an amended complaint¹ filed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection in May 2010, to recover a civil penalty of $17,734,926 under 19 USC 1592 (fraud), had not provided sufficient information to establish that this was the correct penalty amount.

The Court of International Trade (CIT) and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) made the following antidumping and countervailing duty law determinations in the second half of October 2010.

In Trumpf Medical Systems, Inc, v. U.S., the Court of International Trade determined that certain surgical light systems were considered a diagnostic tool chiefly used as an aid to physicians in identifying a disease or illness, and were therefore duty-free under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9018.90.60 as electro-surgical instruments.