International Trade Today is a service of Warren Communications News.
Subscriber Login
Penalties and Courts
to
Refine Category Search
Clear Terms

Search Primer

Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match together (e.g. "forced labor").

Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons to find either word (e.g. AD/CVD CBP).

Acronyms: Use all capital letters (e.g., ACE).

Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., tariffs +Canada).

Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., FDA -alert).

Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "metal" instead of "metals" or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").

Section 301 Complaint Filings at CIT Slow to a Trickle
November 18, 2020 by Paul Gluckman|Penalties and Courts

Complaint filings at the Court of International Trade seeking to have the Section 301 lists 3 and 4A tariff rulemakings vacated and the duties refunded (see 2009210025) slowed to a trickle in November, with fewer than 10 filed within the last two weeks. Of the roughly 3,700 complaints filed since Sept. 10, about 140 have been filed since Sept. 24. That’s the two-year anniversary date of List 3 taking effect and was within the statute of limitations that many lawyers cited under court rules to establish the timeliness of their actions. A plaintiff must file an action within two years “after the cause of action accrues,” court rules say. Lawyers in the subsequent actions will try to establish that the clock started when their importer clients first paid the tariffs.

Topics:Section 301 tariffs, Customs duty, Court of International Trade
Resolving Deadline Issue in Section 301 Litigation Could Stem Flood of Protests, Lawyer Says
November 10, 2020 by Brian Feito|Penalties and Courts

CBP has been swamped with hundreds of thousands of protests related to Section 301 litigation on lists 3 and 4A China tariffs, as importers seek to preserve their rights to refunds if the lawsuits are successful, Robert Silverman of Grunfeld Desiderio said Nov. 9. Negotiations are ongoing with the Department of Justice to untether claims from liquidation dates, which would free importers from potentially having to file the protests to protect their rights, Silverman said, speaking at the Coalition of New England Companies for Trade’s virtual Northeast Cargo Symposium. “We’re trying to get DOJ to agree that liquidation is irrelevant. If they do, then we can stop filing these silly protests,” he said.

CIT Extends Temporary Block on End to Bifacial Solar Safeguard Exemption
November 9, 2020 |Penalties and Courts

Court of International Trade Judge Gary Katzmann extended until Nov. 21 his temporary restraining order barring the government from ending an exemption for bifacial panels from safeguard duties on solar cells, he said in an order issued Nov. 6. The temporary hold had been scheduled to expire Nov. 7, but Katzmann said he is still considering plaintiff Invenergy’s motion to amend an existing injunction to stop President Donald Trump’s Oct. 10 presidential proclamation on the safeguard duties from taking effect. The proclamation had provided for termination of the bifacial exemption effective Oct. 25, but was blocked by Katzmann’s temporary restraining order the day before it took effect (see 2010260025).

Topics:Court of International Trade
Government Too Slow in Refunding Section 232 Duties on Turkish Steel, Transpacific Says
November 5, 2020 |Penalties and Courts

The U.S. government is moving too slowly in the processing of refunds of duties paid on imported steel from Turkey that were subject to additional Section 232 tariffs, Transpacific Steel said in a Nov. 4 filing with the Court of International Trade. Transpacific was the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit over the tariffs. A three-judge CIT panel ruled that the tariffs were improperly imposed because they were put in place after the statutory timelines for Section 232 tariffs (see 2007140046). A government appeal filed in September with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is awaiting a ruling.

Topics:Customs duty, Court of International Trade
DOJ Files to Repatriate Illegally Imported Thai Relics Housed in San Francisco Museum
October 28, 2020 |Penalties and Courts

The Justice Department filed a civil forfeiture action for two religious relics found in the San Francisco Asian Art Museum, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California said in an Oct. 27 news release. The complaint involves “two 1,500-pound hand-carved decorative lintels” that came from ancient religious temples in Thailand. “The complaint alleges the Thai lintels became part of a large collection held by a noted collector of South and Southeast Asian art,” it said. “The collection was bequeathed to the City and County of San Francisco, which used the collection, including the lintels, for display in the Asian Art Museum.” A federal investigation began after a 2016 museum visit by the consul general of the Thai consulate in Los Angeles, who inquired about the provenance of the relics. Based on that investigation, Justice said the lintels were imported in the 1950s or 1960s “in violation of Thai law, i.e. without the requisite export documents, and as LINTELS 1 and 2 were the cultural property of Thailand, LINTELS 1 and 2 constitute stolen, smuggled, and/or clandestinely imported or introduced merchandise.” The museum didn't comment.