In Bauer Nike Hockey USA, Inc. v. U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) ruled that certain imported hockey pants are classified as ice-hockey equipment under HTS 9506.99.25 rather than as sports clothing under HTS 6211.33.00, reversing an earlier Court of International Trade (CIT) decision which had classified the items under the latter heading.
The International Trade Administration (ITA) has issued a notice stating that on January 21, 2005, the Court of International Trade (CIT) affirmed the ITA's final results of redetermination on remand (remand results) with respect to tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished or unfinished from China.
According to a U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel (USA-ITA) Textile Development Memo, on February 7, 2005, the government filed a motion with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) seeking a 'stay' of the preliminary injunction (that prevents CITA from taking further action on threat-based China safeguard petitions), pending consideration of is appeal, which they also asked for from the CIT, and the CIT denied. (USA-ITA TDM, dated 02/10/05, www.usaita.com.)
Shippers NewsWire reports that the American Institute for Shippers' Associations (AISA) and the International Shippers Association have withdrawn their petitions requesting the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) to review the Federal Maritime Commission's (FMC's) decision that restricted the right of shippers' associations to enter into non-vessel operating common carrier (NVOCC) service arrangements. According to the article, the CAFC petitions were premature, as the FMC has not yet ruled on certain petitions the associations have filed with the FMC. (SNW dated 02/03/05, www.americanshipper.com.)
According to a U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel (USA-ITA) Textile Development Memo, on January 31, 2005, the CIT denied the government's motion for a stay (halt) of the preliminary injunction (which is preventing CITA from taking further action on threat-based China safeguard petitions), pending consideration by the CAFC of the government's appeal of the injunction. USA-ITA states that the government is expected to file its appeal of the preliminary injunction at the CAFC this week. (USA-ITA TDM, dated 01/31/05, www.usa-ita.com )
According to a U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel (USA-ITA) Textile Development Memo, on January 27, 2005, the government filed with the CIT a motion for a stay (halt) of its preliminary injunction (which is preventing CITA from taking further action on threat-based China safeguard petitions), pending consideration by the CAFC of the government's appeal of the injunction. (USA-ITA TDM, dated 01/28/05, www.usa-ita.com )
According to a U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel (USA-ITA) Textile Development Memo, on January 25, 2005, the government sent to the Court of International Trade (CIT) a notice stating its intention to file an appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) challenging the CIT"s preliminary injunction enjoining the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA) from taking further action on threat-based China safeguard petitions. (See ITT's Online Archives or 01/04/05 news, 05010405, for BP summary on the CIT injunction.)(USA-ITA TDM, dated 01/26/05, www.usaita.com.)
The International Trade Administration (ITA) has published a notice in the Federal Register stating that on October 1, 2004 the Court of International Trade (CIT) issued an order sustaining the ITA's final results of redetermination on remand with respect certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Thailand.
On December 3, 2004, President Bush signed into law the conference version of H.R. 1047, the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2004.
On August 25, 2004, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a ruling in Intercontinental Marble Corporation v. U.S. affirming an earlier Court of International Trade (CIT) decision that "all stones that polish" are classifiable as marble. Like the CIT, the CAFC rejected Customs' arguments that marble should be defined by its geological definition rather than its commercial meaning.