The Court of International Trade will end its reserve calendar procedures, in a change to its rules that takes effect Oct. 23. The amendment to CIT rule 83 creates a new “Customs Case Management Calendar” for challenges of protests denied by CBP, with a hard 24-month time limit, extendable to 48 months, unless the case is assigned, a complaint is filed, the case is consolidated, the case is suspended under a test case, or the case is voluntarily dismissed.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 18-24:

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 11-17:

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 15 denied another bid to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a gray market importer challenging Lever-Rule protections recently granted to Duracell Batteries (see 1701270015). This time calling the importer by its real name, Milecrest Corporation, after recently finding the company was not allowed to use the pseudonym XYZ Corporation (see 1709130007), CIT again ruled that Lever-Rule determinations to restrict imports of gray market goods may be considered customs rulings challengeable at the trade court. Duracell, which has intervened in the case on the side of the government and filed the motion to dismiss, did not raise any new issues “that would invalidate the court’s previous opinion regarding jurisdiction” issued in July in response to the government’s earlier motion (see 1707240031), CIT said.

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 15 again ruled that filing for bankruptcy does not stop the government from pursuing Section 1592 penalty cases against importers in court. Mirroring a ruling issued by a different CIT judge in August (see 1708110027), CIT Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves held that Section 1592 has the legitimate public policy purpose of deterring customs fraud and encouraging accurate completion of entry documents. That means it qualifies for the public policy exemption from the automatic stay of claims on debtors during bankruptcy protection, she said. The purpose of the lawsuit is also to fix penalties, rather than collect them, seeing that the court still has a final say in the penalty amount, the court said. In the case, filed in February, the government alleges Greenlight Organic fraudulently imported athletic wearing apparel. Greenlight Organic filed for bankruptcy protection in Nevada in July.

The State Department ordered Barrington, N.J.-based Bright Lights to pay a $400,000 civil penalty to settle 11 charges related to illicit exports of technical drawings and a failure to maintain and provide required records, in alleged violation of the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), according to State documents posted Sept. 12. Prior to Feb. 19, 2013, Bright Lights’ business practice was to create “redacted” versions of technical drawings for products it wanted to outsource, according to State’s proposed charging letter. The company prepared the drawings by “removing any export control language” and transferring the rest of the drawings, in whole or in part, onto a company-labeled and formatted page. After complete, Bright Lights would send the modified page for manufacture or post it online to solicit quotations, State said.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 4-10:

The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is denying export privileges for three individuals for export control law violations, the agency said. BIS removed export privileges for Ambar Morales until March 23, 2021, which will be five years after the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona convicted her of attempting to export 7,942 rounds of ammunition designated on the U.S. Munitions List (USML) without a required State Department license, in violation of the Arms Export Control Act, BIS said. BIS removed export privileges for Dmitrii Karpenko until April 28, 2022, after he was convicted April 28, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for conspiring to export microelectronics items controlled under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to Russia with no State/BIS license, in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). BIS also eliminated export privileges for Alexey Krutilin until April 28, 2027, after he was convicted on April 28, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for conspiring to export EAR-controlled microelectronics items to Russia without the required State/BIS license, in violation of IEEPA.

An importer’s lawsuit on the tariff classification of child bicycle seats will proceed unchecked, after the Court of International Trade on Sept. 8 denied the government’s bid to dismiss portions of the case. Kent International says CBP defied its own established practice and did not afford Kent the same treatment given to other importers when it classified entries of Kent’s WeeRide Kangaroo child bicycle seats in heading 8417, dutiable at 10 percent, rather than a duty-free provision of subheading 9401.80. Though CBP had issued Kent a ruling in 2005 that the merchandise was dutiable at the higher rate, it had subsequently granted two of Kent’s protests and issued several rulings to other importers finding similar merchandise duty-free. The trade court found Kent’s complaint adequately raised questions of whether CBP’s decision to reliquidate subsequent entries at the 10% rate, before its eventual revocation of the other importers’ rulings through Customs Bulletin notices and comment, may have run against the agency’s own established practice and treatment.

An importer of gray market batteries currently embroiled in a customs lawsuit with Duracell cannot use an anonymous pseudonym to protect itself from trademark suits in other courts, the Court of International Trade said in a decision issued Sept. 12. Recently having ruled that the anonymous “XYZ Corporation” can challenge Duracell’s lever rule protections against gray market imports (see 1707240031), the court held the company must give up its pseudonym and file a new complaint with its true identity.