International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Aug. 5-9 in case they were missed.
A recent Federal Circuit decision on tariff engineering is the latest in a string of cases that threatens to throw the importing community into turmoil, trade groups said in briefs requesting that the court rehear the case. The American Association of Exporters and Importers, the Customs and International Trade Bar Association and, in a joint brief, the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce say the appeals court’s decision on Ford transit vans threatens to upend a century of precedent on tariff classification by solidifying use as a factor in eo nomine tariff classification.
The Court of International Trade was mistaken in its decision on whether the CIT could consider a legal challenge before a protest was actually denied, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a July 22 ruling. The CAFC reversed and remanded the CIT's decision to allow the protest lawsuit to go forward under the residual jurisdiction in 28 USC 1581(i) (see 1711090037). "Importers such as Hymer should not be permitted to rest on artful or creative pleadings to expand the jurisdictional scope of § 1581(i), which Congress limited as a statutory basis for the CIT’s jurisdiction over protests," CAFC said.
The Court of International Trade's ruling that steel rebar stakes fall within the scope of a Commerce Department antidumping duty order was correct, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a July 2 decision. CIT last year said that the stakes, which are used for holding up grape vines and other plants, are subject to antidumping duties on steel concrete reinforcing bar from China (see 1803130031). Quiedan Company filed the underlying lawsuit with the assertion that the AD order doesn't apply because one side of the stakes is sharpened to a point and the AD order specifies rebar sold in straight lengths. CAFC, like CIT and the Commerce Department, disagreed. "We see no substantive or procedural error in that ruling or in Commerce’s continuation of a suspension of liquidation for Quiedan’s stakes," CAFC said. "Because the Court of International Trade drew the same conclusions, we affirm."
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for June 3-7 in case they were missed.
Tariff engineering is still a legitimate option in the wake of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s June 7 decision on Ford Transit vans, but the practice may be more uncertain in the increasingly frequent circumstances wherein “use” is deemed a consideration in tariff classification, said trade lawyers contacted after the decision was issued.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 7 reversed a lower court decision that found Ford’s use of tariff engineering legitimate to secure a lower duty rate on its imported cargo vans. CAFC held that, while post-importation activities such as the removal of passenger seats are irrelevant to classification, the relevant tariff subheading for “vehicles principally designed for the transport of persons” suggests some consideration of use. The van’s design features, including shoddy passenger seats, suggest they are intended for use as cargo vans of heading 8704, and subject to a higher duty rate, the Federal Circuit said.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 20 denied a bid by the U.S. government to lift an injunction banning imports of fish products from Mexican fisheries engaging in practices that threaten the vaquita porpoise (see 1807260039). The government had told CAFC that it has submitted several briefs to the Court of International Trade showing that the injunction is no longer necessary because of actions taken by the U.S. and Mexican governments, including a finding that a Mexican Gulf of California corvina fisheries doesn’t meet comparability requirements and should be declared ineligible for importation (see 1812030020). The Federal Circuit said CIT should have the chance to review the briefs before the appeals court takes up the case. “We are not convinced by the Government that the factual circumstances have changed so much as to warrant our dismissal of the preliminary injunction before reconsideration by the CIT,” it said.
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for May 13-17 in case they were missed.
CBP can’t collect antidumping or countervailing duties when the scope of the AD or CV duty is still unclear as to whether the entries are covered by duties, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a May 16 decision. Affirming a 2018 decision from the Court of International Trade, CAFC held CBP should have waited for Commerce’s scope ruling on Sunpreme’s hybrid cells before requiring cash deposits, and ordered a refund of cash deposits collected before Commerce began the underlying scope inquiry.