In Canex International Lumber Sales Ltd., v. U.S., the Court of International Trade ruled that cut lumber, with an angle cut on one end and a square cut on the other end was properly classified as sawn wood under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) 4407.10.0015 free of duty, and not as roof trusses under 4418.90.4020 at 3.2% ad valorem, or as other articles of wood under 4421.90.9840 at 3.3% ad valorem.

On June 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court determined which set of two conflicting laws will apply to the inland U.S. rail portions of shipments of imported merchandise shipped under a single “through” bill of lading. Reversing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the high Court ruled in Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha v. Regal-Beloit Corp. that only the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), and not the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, will apply to such shipments.

The Supreme Court ruled in Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha v. Regal-Beloit Corp. that the Carmack Amendment does not apply to a shipment originating overseas under a single through bill of lading. Therefore the shippers whose Chinese origin goods were damaged in a Union Pacific derailment in Oklahoma must seek redress in Tokyo, as stipulated in the ocean carrier’s standard terms on its single through bill of lading.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a finding by the Court of International Trade in favor of an International Trade Administration determination that mixed-wax candles imported by Target Corporation from China are “later-developed merchandise” that are legitimately included in the AD order on petroleum wax candles from China.

Nike, Inc. has sued a Customs broker for its role as the "attorney-in-fact" entry filer for the importation of counterfeit branded footwear. Nike seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief from further infringement of Nike’s trademarks, as well as damages, costs, and attorney fees.

Nike, Inc. has sued a Customs broker¹ for its role as the "importer of record" entry filer in the importation of counterfeit branded merchandise. Nike seeks permanent injunctive relief from the counterfeiting, infringing, and dilution of Nike’s trademarks and the false designation of origin. Nike is also seeking monetary damages.

The Court of International Trade (CIT) decided the following antidumping and countervailing duty law determination in the first half of June 2010.

In Michael Simon Design, Inc., Tru 8 d/b/a Arriviste, Inc., and Target Stores (a division of Target Corporation), v. U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of International Trade’s refusal to review a new Chapter 95 note added to the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule by Presidential Proclamation.

On June 17, 2010, the Court of International Trade denied U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s request to reconsider¹ its January 2010 remand decision, which ruled that broker penalties² could not be imposed against UPS Customhouse Brokerage, Inc., as CBP had failed to prove at trial that it had considered all ten 19 CFR 111.1 factors when evaluating whether UPS had maintained responsible supervision and control.

In Pacific Northwest Equipment, Inc., v. U.S., the Court of International Trade ruled that platform containers are free of duty under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8609.00.00, as containers specially designed and equipped for carriage by one or more modes of transport, and not under subheading 7326.90.85 as an article of iron or steel at 2.9% ad valorem.