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 July 2010.
In Ford Motor Company, v. U.S. et al., the Court of International Trade denied Ford’s request to liquidate and refund duties paid on ten reconciliation entries of imported Jaguar brand vehicles. The CIT dismissed all of Ford’s claims on grounds ranging from lack of case or controversy, lack of jurisdiction, mootness, or in some instances, at the Court’s discretion.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (CADC) has ruled that manufacturers may appeal Environmental Protection Agency “misbranding” actions in district court when the agency’s actions effectively threaten to cancel a product’s registration without due hearings and argument.
On July 23, 2010, in National Corn Growers Association, Et Al. v. Environmental Protection Agency Et Al., the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted NCGA’s petition requiring review of its objections to the EPA’s total ban of the pesticide Carbofuran1 in imported foods, and cancelled EPA’s final rule to the extent that it revoked any Carbofuran tolerance levels2 in imported food.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard an exporter’s appeal of a Bureau of Industry and Security enforcement action, but ruled that while the Export Administration Act of 1979 (EAA) is lapsed because it has not been reauthorized by Congress, jurisdiction for such appeals passes to district court.
The Court of International Trade and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit made the following antidumping and countervailing duty law determinations in the first half of July 2010.
In Delphi Petroleum, Inc., v. U.S., the Court of International Trade ruled that Customs had not acted in bad faith by failing to extend the statutory time limit for filing Delphi’s drawback claims under 19 USC 1313(r)(1) and denied Delphi’s motion for attorneys’ fees¹ pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 USC 2412.
In Applied Biosystems (a division of Applera Corporation), v. U.S., the Court of International Trade granted summary judgment affirming Customs and Border Protection’s classification of certain thermal cyclers under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8419.89.95, at 4.2 % ad valorem, which includes “machinery, plant or laboratory equipment…for treatment of materials by a process involving a change in temperature” and not under heading 9032.89.60 at 1.7% ad valorem, which covers “automatic regulating or controlling instruments and apparatus”.
On July 8, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in National Resources Defense Council, Inc. et al., v. U.S. Department of Agriculture et al., upholding a 2004 Department of Agriculture regulation requiring that imports of unmanufactured solid wood packing material (SWPM) be either heat treated or fumigated with methyl bromide prior to importation.
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 June 2010.