Japanese producers1 appealed a ruling by the Court of International Trade upholding the final results of the May ’06 -- April ’07 AD administrative review of ball bearings and parts thereof from Japan, as to various aspects of model matching and the use of zeroing in the margin calculation (disregarding the value of non-dumped sales in the average dumping margin). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld all of the International Trade Administration’s model matching decisions but, citing its own recent decision challenging zeroing in Dongbu Steel Co. Ltd. v. United States, the CAFC remanded the zeroing issue to the CIT for further explanation by the ITA on why it is reasonable to use zeroing in reviews but not in investigations. (See ITT’s Online Archives or 04/04/11 news, 11040408, for BP summary of Dongbu decision challenging the continued use of zeroing)
A group of 43 U.S. softwood lumber producers not belonging to the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports sued at the Court of International Trade for a share of the $500 million in export charges collected by Canada and distributed to Coalition members under the Softwood Lumber Agreement of October 12, 2006 (the 2006 SLA). However, the CIT declined to hear the case, claiming it did not have jurisdiction because the U.S. Trade Representative had entered into the SLA under the legal authority of a different section of the Trade Act of 1974 than the one that gives the CIT jurisdiction (section 2171, rather than the CIT’s section 2411). However, tracing the history of the softwood lumber dispute since 1986, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned the CIT and ruled that the 2006 SLA does indeed fall within the CIT’s statutory jurisdiction. While allowing that a different argument, not yet adjudicated, might still succeed in removing jurisdiction, the CAFC ordered the CIT to hear the case. (Decision 2010-1389, decided 06/28/11)
The Court of International Trade has ruled in CBB Group, Inc., v. U.S., that its consideration of cases involving "deemed exclusions" and its ability to order relief, if warranted, is not precluded by CBP's issuance of a Seizure Notice (as it was issued after the case was brought to court) or by the prospect that adjudication of claims will involve the application of copyright law.
The Court of International Trade ruled in CBB Group, Inc. v. U.S. that U.S. Customs and Border Protection cannot take action to dispose of imports it found to be piratical copies that infringe a registered copyright while the case is pending, as its Seizure Notice was issued after the importer’s case was brought and the court’s jurisdiction had attached. The importer is challenging CBP’s alleged exclusion of its plush toys from entry and CBP’s deemed denial of its protest of that event.
Broker Power is providing readers with some of the top stories for June 20 - 24, 2011 in case they were missed last week.
The following are details of a June 16, 2011 decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (here) that overturned a lower court ruling and arguments by U.S. Customs and Border Protection on the classification of certain “CamelBak” back-mounted packs. CAFC agreed with Camelbak that its packs are made up of two different components and are "composite goods" that should be classified by the essential character test, because the two applicable subheadings refer to only part of the subject articles.
The International Trade Administration has announced that it is revising the interim1 methodology it has been using to value the cost of labor in non-market economy (NME) countries in antidumping proceedings to use a single surrogate-country approach based on different labor cost data.
On June 16, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overruled the lower court and agreed with CamelBak Products LLC that its back-mounted packs are made up of two different components (a hydration component and a storage component), and are "composite goods" that should be classified by the essential character test, because the two applicable subheadings refer to only part of the subject articles. CBP had argued, and the lower court had affirmed, that the items were not "composite goods" and that a single tariff provision applied to the articles in their entirety.
The Supreme Court has affirmed a Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit judgment that Microsoft Corporation willfully infringed a patent held by i4i Limited Partnership and Infrastructures for Information Inc. (collectively i4i), which claims an improved method for editing computer documents.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed the International Trade Commission's final determination that the importation and sale of certain silicon microphone packages by MEMS Technology Berhad (MemsTech) violated section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 USC 1337) by infringing the asserted claims of two patents owned by Knowles Electronics LLC. The patents at issue pertained to microelectromechanical system (MEMS) microphone packages, which are used in a variety of consumer electronic devices, including mobile phones.