The Court of International Trade and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided the following antidumping and countervailing duty law determinations in the first half of May 2010.
Totes-Isotoner Corporation has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review whether differences in customs duty rates, based on gender or age, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
The Court of International Trade and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided the following antidumping and countervailing duty law cases in the second half of April 2010.
The Court of International Trade (CIT) and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) decided the following antidumping and countervailing duty law determinations in the first half of April 2010.
The following antidumping or countervailing duty law determinations of the Court of International Trade (CIT) and/or the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) were decided in the second half of March 2010.
The following antidumping or countervailing duty law determinations at the Court of International Trade (CIT) and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) were decided in the first half of March 2010.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has posted USTR Kirk's remarks (as prepared for delivery) for his February 19th meeting at the Detroit Economic Club. Among other things, Kirk stated that in just two weeks, the USTR will be releasing the President's 2010 Trade Agenda, which will explain in-depth exactly what the government hopes to accomplish this year. (Remarks, posted 02/19/10, available at http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/speeches/transcripts/2010/february/remarks-ambassador-kirk-detroit-economic-cl)
In Totes-Isotoner Corporation v. U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of International Trade's judgment that Totes-Isotoner Corporation, which had challenged the constitutionality of different U.S. tariff rates for men's and other gloves, had standing to bring its claims but did not plead sufficient facts to state a claim of unconstitutional discrimination.
In its remand decision, U.S. v. UPS Customhouse Brokerage, Inc., the Court of International Trade ruled it would enter judgment in favor of UPS and deny the government's request for a rehearing to recover monetary penalties of $75,000 imposed by Customs due to UPS' alleged failure to exercise responsible supervision and control over its customs brokerage business, in violation of 19 USC 1641(b)(4).
The Court of International Tradehasruled against further proceedingson an Appeal Court'sruling that invalidateda CIT decision thatUPS Customhouse Brokerage violated 19 USC 1641 by not exercising responsible supervision and control.The CAFC had ruled thatCustoms was required toconsider all 10 factors listed in 19 CFR 111.1 as a prerequisite. The CIT also ruled that a discretionary remand to Customs would be inappropriate. (U.S. v. UPS Customshouse Brokerage, Inc., Slip Op. 10-11, dated 01/28/10, available at http://www.cit.uscourts.gov/slip_op/Slip_op10/Slip%20Op%2010-11.pdf)