The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned a Court of International Trade ruling in a July 18 decision on the classification of parts made for the Container Store’s "elfa" modular storage furniture system. The CAFC disagreed with the CIT's finding from last year that the "top tracks and hanging standards" are classifiable as parts of general use, not parts of furniture (see 1601220024). CIT didn't give enough consideration to an explanatory note for heading 8302, which explains that the scope of heading 8302 doesn't include goods that form an "essential part of the structure," the CAFC said in its decision (here).
A Commerce Department antidumping duty review of a Chinese exporter of steel nails was valid, even though notification requirements were not met and the Chinese exporter did not defend itself in the review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said on May 30 (here). Affirming a Court of International Trade ruling issued in April 2016 (see 1604250033), the appeals court found Suntec was effectively notified of the administrative review when the initiation notice was published in the Federal Register, even though the domestic manufacturer that requested the review did not serve the request directly on Suntec, as required by regulation.
Interest on past due customs duties and fees are subject to the same protest and judicial challenge procedures as those for any other duty or fee, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said on May 26 (here). Affirming a Court of International Trade ruling from August 2015 (see 1508200013), the appeals court held that, because interest on past due bills is protestable, American Home Assurance Company (AHAC) waived its right to challenge CBP’s interest calculations because it did not file a court challenge on a denied protest of the interest by the applicable deadline.
Kits must include non-extruded aluminum components to qualify for the finished goods kit exemption from antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said March 28 (here) as it reversed a lower court decision. Reinstating a Commerce Department ruling issued in 2012 (see 12122601), the appeals court found refrigerator trim kits imported by Meridian Products are subject to AD/CV duties because they include only extruded aluminum parts and fasteners.
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Jan. 9-13 in case they were missed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 9 affirmed (here) a lower court ruling that bauxite proppants used for hydraulic fracking are classifiable as ores, not ceramic wares or articles. The pellets can’t be classified as the latter because they do not have a definite shape, varying widely in size. They can be classified as ores because, even though they are intended for non-metallurgical purposes, they still include minerals that are precursors to aluminum and have not undergone any processes that aren’t used in the metallurgical industry, CAFC said.
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Dec. 12-16 in case they were missed.
CAFC Affirms Award of Fees and Costs to Importer of White Sauce in Case on Improperly Revoked Ruling
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 15 affirmed a lower court ruling ordering the government to cover attorney’s fees and costs paid by International Custom Products in one of several contentious cases involving a CBP ruling letter improperly revoked without notice and comment (here). The decision likely brings to a close a series of cases dating back to 2005 on a CBP notice of action reclassifying ICP’s white sauce (see 06030725), which led to a 2,400% duty increase and put the company out of business (see 12121239).
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 2 declined to dismiss a penalty case brought by the government against an importer’s chief executive officer that claimed he was improperly notified. The CEO, Julio Lorza, said CBP only included his company, International Trading Services (ITS), on pre-penalty and penalty notices of Section 592 violations related to entries of sugar. CIT, citing previous cases on the subject, found (here) that CBP is not required to name a company’s corporate officers in a penalty notice for the government to bring a case against them, and that Lorza in any case knew he could be held responsible.
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Nov. 21-25 in case they were missed.