The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 28 upheld the constitutionality of Section 232 tariffs on iron and steel products, affirming a 2019 Court of International Trade decision in a closely followed case brought by the American Institute for International Steel.
Ford Motor Company recently filed a Supreme Court appeal of a case involving tariff engineering of Ford transit vans to obtain a lower rate for passenger vehicles. The automaker’s Feb. 13 petition for certiorari says the Supreme Court’s intervention is necessary to end uncertainty for U.S. importers caused by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s “doctrinally incoherent and erroneous precedent,” and to rectify the CAFC’s errant decision not to address certain arguments made by Ford at a lower court.
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Feb. 10-14 in case they were missed.
A good manufactured in the U.S. with foreign components does not have to be substantially transformed to qualify as a U.S. good for government procurement purposes, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a Feb. 10 decision. Acetris had appealed the Department of Veterans Affairs decision to disqualify from eligibility for a procurement contract Acetris’s pharmaceuticals manufactured in the U.S. from an Indian active pharmaceutical ingredient. The VA relied on a CBP ruling issued in April 2018 that found the country of origin was India because the drugs did not undergo a substantial transformation (see 1804030065). India is not a party to the World Trade Organization’s Government Procurement Agreement. The Federal Circuit, affirming a ruling from the Court of Federal Claims, found the VA does not have to defer to CBP rulings, and that the term “U.S.-made end product” in the Foreign Acquisition Regulations does not only encompass products wholly manufactured or substantially transformed in the United States. “Instead, such products may be -- as Acetris’ products are -- 'manufactured’ in the United States from foreign-made components,” CAFC said.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 13 upheld a lower court decision that found Commerce cannot suspend liquidation retroactively prior to the beginning of a scope inquiry, even when no formal scope inquiry is conducted. The agency had in 2013 found washers imported by United Steel and Fasteners were subject to, and had always been covered by, the antidumping duty order on helical spring lock washers from China. It directed CBP to suspend liquidation for unliquidated entries all the way back to 1993, when the AD duty order was originally issued (see 13071529). CIT sustained the scope ruling, but said Commerce’s regulations prevent it from ordering retroactive suspension of liquidation prior to the date of a scope inquiry’s initiation, unless CBP had already suspended liquidation (see 1701120034). CAFC agreed, noting that Commerce itself, when issued the relevant regulations, said importers have the right to rely on CBP liquidation decisions until Commerce rules otherwise.
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Jan. 6-10 in case they were missed.
CBP has the authority to interpret the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders when making decisions related to the release of goods, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a Jan. 7 decision. Reversing parts of its own May 2019 decision (see 1905170047), the full court ruled “en banc” that CBP has the responsibility to decide whether AD/CV duties apply to specific entries, even if the scope of the relevant AD/CV duty order is ambiguous without a Commerce Department scope ruling.
An importer can still be guilty of infringing patents related to production processes, even if it didn’t itself perform those processes and only imported the finished good, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a Dec. 18 decision.
CBP is proposing to limit the reach of Court of International Trade and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rulings involving locking pliers, it said in the Nov. 20 issue of the Customs Bulletin released on Nov. 19. CBP's proposal stems from a CAFC ruling this year (see 1904100037) and a pair of 2017 CIT rulings (see 1704130035 and 1709210048) that involved Irwin locking pliers. “CBP believes that the definition applied by the court unduly limits the scope of the term wrench and precludes articles that function as wrenches and are commonly and commercially known as wrenches from classification as wrenches," it said.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently ruled against an importer seeking to file a late request for a Generalized System of Preferences benefits program refund after it missed the deadline due to a miscommunication with its broker. Affirming a decision issued by the Court of International Trade in September 2018 (see 1809240017), the Federal Circuit found valid CBP’s denial of Industrial Chemical’s protest to request refunds of duties paid during the 2013-15 GSP lapse. The Dec. 28, 2015, deadline for requesting the refunds was set by law, and CBP had no discretion to allow refund requests beyond that date, CAFC said. And while the protest was filed within 180 days of CBP’s denial of GSP refunds, it had to be filed within 180 days of the relevant entry’s liquidation, and it was not, the Federal Circuit said.