The International Trade Administration has published a "Timken"1 notice stating that a recent Court of International Trade's ruling is not in harmony with the ITA's final results of AD duty administrative review for wooden bedroom furniture from China (A-570-890).
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.
In a September 16, 2010 decision, Pressman-Gutman Co. Inc. and American Motorists Insurance Company v. U.S., the Court of International Trade ruled that the importer did not breach its customs bond by failing to redeliver certain goods, as Customs’ demand for redelivery was untimely.
The International Trade Commission has instituted an investigation1 into U.S. Customs and Border Protection's request to add a new Chapter 98 U.S. note and amended tariff numbers in order to provide duty-free treatment to certain utilitarian articles (including apparel) that incorporate a festive design, decoration, emblem or motif.
The Court of International Trade (CIT) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) made public the following antidumping and countervailing duty law determinations in the first half of September 2010.
The International Trade Administration has made a preliminary affirmative antidumping determination that polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) from Taiwan is being, or is likely to be, sold in the U.S. at less than fair value.
In the review of Horizon Lines, LLC, v. U.S. (Horizon III)ordered by the appeals court, the Court of International Trade ruled that new evidence shows that Horizon’s decision to lay-up the Horizon Crusader in Indonesia was based on its lack of a commercial use for the vessel and that costs of the lay-up were therefore not dutiable under 19 USC 1466(a)1 as part of the repairs performed later in Singapore.
The Court of International Trade (CIT) made public the following antidumping and countervailing duty law determinations in the second half of August 2010.
In a partial rehearing of its January 2010 decision, U.S. v. Tip Top Pants, Inc., the Court of International Trade again ruled that U.S. Customs and Border Protection had committed a procedural violation by failing to issue a written statement to Tip Top on its mitigation petition as required by 19 USC 1592 (b)(2) and 19 CFR 171.21.
On July 29, 2010, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 3677, the fiscal year 20111 appropriations bill for financial services and general government, including the CPSC, Treasury, TTB, FTC, SBA, etc.
In Citizen Watch Co. of America, Inc. v. U.S, the Court of International Trade ruled that certain imported watch boxes entered separately should be classified as “other packing containers” under HTS 4819.50.40 (duty-free), instead of U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s classification as “jewelry boxes and similar containers” under HTS 4202.99.90 (20% duty).