On June 16, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overruled the lower court and agreed with CamelBak Products LLC that its back-mounted packs are made up of two different components (a hydration component and a storage component), and are "composite goods" that should be classified by the essential character test, because the two applicable subheadings refer to only part of the subject articles. CBP had argued, and the lower court had affirmed, that the items were not "composite goods" and that a single tariff provision applied to the articles in their entirety.
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 International Trade Administration has announced that it is revising the interim1 methodology it has been using to value the cost of labor in non-market economy (NME) countries in antidumping proceedings to use a single surrogate-country approach based on different labor cost data.
For the antidumping duty administrative review of certain pasta from Italy for the period July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007, the Court of International Trade previously granted a request from the International Trade Administration for a voluntary remand to reconsider whether accounting expenses of Italian producer Pasta Zara SpA were direct or indirect expenses. The court also ordered the ITA to reconsider whether all home market sales, whether to independent retailers or large discount chains, were in fact at a single level of trade, as the ITA claimed.
The International Trade Commission has reversed its views and is no longer recommending the addition of a new Chapter 98 U.S. note and amended tariff numbers that would provide duty-free treatment to certain utilitarian textile and other articles that incorporate a festive design, decoration, emblem or motif. U.S. Customs and Border Protection had recommended these changes in light of a 2007 note added to Chapter 95 and an earlier court decision, Michael Simon Design.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled, in BenQ America Corporation v. U.S., to vacate a Court of International Trade decision to classify certain Dell™ LCD monitors1 as video monitors under HTS 8528 (5%) as opposed to duty-free automatic data processing (ADP) machines under HTS 8471. The CAFC remands the case to the CIT, which CAFC states should conduct a "principal use" analysis of the monitors to determine their correct classification.
The Court of International Trade issued a second remand covering the antidumping duty administrative review of stainless steel bar from India for the February 2005 --January 2006 period, ordering the International Trade Administration to conduct individual examinations of at least two additional respondents, and to recalculate dumping margins for any and all remaining unexamined respondents (the ITA had initially reviewed only two out of eight prospective respondents). The court also ordered the ITA to complete its additional calculations in 300 days, rather than the 365 days the ITA requested, and denied motions by three respondents to withdraw their requests for review. (See ITT’s Online Archives or 12/09/09 news, 09120955, for BP summary of the prior CIT remand decision.) (Slip Op. 11-61, dated 05/26/11)
The Court of International Trade has ruled in Shah Brothers, Inc., v. U.S., that a 2009 amendment to 19 USC 1514 regarding U.S. Customs and Border Protection's tax collection authority over tobacco products, imported gutkha in this case, does not alter CBP's responsibility as the final agency decision-maker, and as a result, jurisdiction is not available under 28 USC 1581(i).
On May 25, 2011, a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee heard testimony from government officials1 on the enforcement of antidumping and countervailing duty laws. Officials stated that over $1 billion in AD/CV duties is uncollected, with most of it from Chinese firms. Changes to the “deemed liquidation” process, the new shipper rules, and the retrospective duty collection system were among the possible fixes discussed.
The Court of International Trade has ruled in U.S. v. American Home Assurance Co. (AHAC), that U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s suspension of liquidation is not invalid if it fails to notify the surety of the suspension.
Korean producer Hyosung Corporation did not respond by the deadline to a quantity and value questionnaire from the International Trade Administration in the initial stages of the February 2008 - January 2009 antidumping duty administrative review of certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel (CTL) plate from Korea, then gave an incomplete response by fax only. The Court of International Trade dismissed Hyosung’s challenge to the 32.70% rate the ITA assigned it, ruling that the ITA was correct to reject the untimely and incomplete questionnaire, and finding that the adverse rate was supported by sufficient evidence. (Slip Op. 11-34, dated 03/31/11, posted 05/17/11)