The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 26 - March 3:
Court of International Trade
The United States Court of International Trade is a federal court which has national jurisdiction over civil actions regarding the customs and international trade laws of the United States. The Court was established under Article III of the Constitution by the Customs Courts Act of 1980. The Court consists of nine judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and is located in New York City. The Court has jurisdiction throughout the United States and has exclusive jurisdictional authority to decide civil action pertaining to international trade against the United States or entities representing the United States.
The Court of International Trade in a decision made public Feb. 29 rejected Chinese printer cartridge exporter Ninestar Corp.'s motion for a preliminary injunction against its designation on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Judge Gary Katzmann said the company was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claims and failed to show that it would suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction. He also said the balance of equities and public interest favored the government.
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 27 ruled that Chinese exporter Ninestar Corp. wasn't required to exhaust its administrative remedies by appealing to the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force before challenging its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List "under the particular facts of this case." But Judge Gary Katzmann denied the exporter's motion for a preliminary injunction against its placement on the Entity List, finding that the company was unlikely to succeed on three of its four claims against its listing.
The Commerce Department is amending the final results of an antidumping duty administrative review on multilayered wood flooring (MLWF) from China (A-570-970) based on the final decision in a Court of International Trade case challenging those final results.
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 26 issued an amended decision in a customs case on the tariff classification of five categories of chrome-plated plastic automobile parts after initially deciding the case Dec. 18. The new decision adds a discussion of axle covers, the fifth category of goods, finding them to fall under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8708 pursuant to General Rule of Interpretation 1.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 19-25:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 12-18:
Exporter Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xing) Industry Co. filed a lawsuit at the Court of International Trade to contest a withhold release order on the company and CBP's rejection of the exporter's petition to be removed from the WRO. The company, which goes by Jiaxing Hoshine, said the WRO has done "significant and irreparable damage" to its business and reputation and that CBP has skirted the law by failing to disclose the evidence it used in issuing the WRO (Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xing) Industry Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00048).
Importer Trijicon's tritium-powered gun sights are "lamps" and not "apparatus," slotting them under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9405, the Court of International Trade ruled on Feb. 16. Judge Mark Barnett said the gun sights do not meet definition of "apparatus" put forward by either Trijicon or the government, who respectively defined the term as a set of materials or equipment and a complex device. The court instead found that the products "are readily classified as lamps," which are defined as "any of various devices for producing light."
Georgia woman Skeeter-Jo Stoute-Francois filed suit at the Court of International Trade Feb. 16 to contest six questions on the October 2021 customs broker license exam. In her complaint, Stoute-Francois said that after appealing the test results to the Treasury Department, she was left just short of the 75% grade needed to pass the test, failing at 73.75% (Skeeter-Jo Stoute-Francois v. U.S., CIT # 24-00046).