In UPS Customhouse Brokerage, Inc., v. U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the Court of International Trade that UPS had misclassified certain merchandise under HTS 8473.30.90, but the CAFC invalidated the CIT's holding concerning Customs' determination that UPS did not exercise responsible supervision and control under 19 USC 1641.
Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) has issued a press release announcing that the Cabinet of Japan will approve the extension for another year of its retaliatory measures against the U.S. in connection with the U.S.' continued disbursement of antidumping and countervailing duty revenues under the Byrd Amendment.1
The Court of International Trade has determined that the International Trade Administration erred when it excluded from the scope of six antidumping duty determinations and resulting orders for certain frozen warmwater shrimp, frozen shrimp coated with flour known as "dusted shrimp1."
The following Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and Court of International Trade cases on antidumping and countervailing duty issues were dated or decided in the second half of June 2009.
In Value Vinyls, Inc. v. U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision by the Court of International Trade that certain plastic-coated material, whose textile component is made entirely of man-made fibers, should be classified under subheading 3921.90.11 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule with a duty rate of 4.2 percent.
The Court of International Trade has ordered the retroactive refund of 100% duties paid by Gilda Industries, Inc. on imports of toasted bread from Spain, as the authority for the collection of these duties lapsed on July 29, 2007.
The following Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and Court of International Trade (CIT) cases on antidumping and countervailing duty issues were dated or decided in the first half of June, 2009.
In Heartland By-Products, Inc., v. U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Court of International Trade, ruling that the CIT erred by not allowing retroactive classification treatment at the higher Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) rate on imports of sugar syrup from Canada in accordance with an earlier decision by the CAFC (Heartland II CAFC 00-1287-1289).
In a patent case involving imported light emitting diodes (LEDs), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the limited exclusion order (LEO) which the International Trade Commission had imposed against Epistar Corporation of Hsinchu, Taiwan.
The following Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and Court of International Trade (CIT) cases on antidumping and countervailing duty issues were dated or decided in May 2009.