Seko Logistics will still pursue its lawsuit challenging CBP's suspension of the company from Type 86 filing and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, despite CBP's conditional reinstatement of the customs broker, according to a June 4 statement from the company. The Chicago-area customs broker and freight forwarder says CBP still hasn’t fully provided its reasons for Seko’s initial suspension.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 27 - June 2:
U.S. importer Water Pik will avoid Section 301 duties on its electromechanical oral hygiene devices from China after arguing that CBP should have classified them under a different Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading (Water Pik v. United States, CIT # 23-00083).
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Seko Customs Brokerage, which had added staffing to handle Type 86 filings before it was suspended from the Type 86 program beginning May 27 (see 2405310031), filed a complaint on June 3 asking the Court of International Trade to force CBP to reinstate it through an injunction.
Seko, a customs brokerage based in Illinois that can no longer file Type 86 entries after CBP suspended it from the program last week, is asking the Court of International Trade to force CBP to reinstate it through an injunction.
The Court of International Trade on May 31 said that a duty drawback claim becomes deemed liquidated after one year if the underlying import entries are also liquidated and final, with finality defined as the end of the 180-day window in which to file a protest with CBP.
The Court of International Trade on May 28 rejected the government's motion for partial reconsideration of the court's decision finding that the government violated the "implied contractual term" of reasonableness in waiting eight years to demand payment from surety Aegis Security Insurance Co. on a customs bond.
The Court of International Trade on May 28 said the Commerce Department erred in revoking the antidumping duty orders on stilbenic optical brightening agents from Taiwan and China after it didn't receive a timely notice of intent to participate in the orders' sunset reviews from a domestic producer. Judge M. Miller Baker told Commerce to conduct the full sunset reviews since U.S. manufacturer Archroma U.S. filed substantive responses to the agency's notice of initiation of the sunset reviews.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of May 13-19 and May 20-26: