CBP is hoping to begin its risk-based bonding program for new importers of merchandise subject to antidumping and countervailing duties in March 2020, but there still remain some thorny issues that need to be ironed out. The agency is still working on ACE enhancements, including identifiers and queries for new importers, said Lisa Gelsomino, of Avalon Risk Management, at the Dec. 4 meeting of the Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC).
Some trade remedy exclusions are regulations, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act when it revoked a solar cells safeguard exemption without first putting it up for public notice and comment, the Court of International Trade said on Dec. 5 as it approved a preliminary injunction that keeps the exemption in effect.
Another group of steel importers filed a broad legal challenge to Section 232 tariffs on iron and steel products on Dec. 3, this time alleging that the measures are based on a faulty Commerce Department report and should be terminated by court order and refunded.
Two prominent Republicans questioned the suitability of switching tariffs for quotas because of currency manipulation in Brazil and Argentina, as President Donald Trump said Dec. 2 he is doing. Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., the leading critic of Trump's trade policy, issued a statement that night that said, “He is justifying these tariffs by citing Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. This provision is exclusively meant for national security threats. Yet, the President has acknowledged that the real purpose of this action is to combat currency manipulation -- which does not pose a national security threat. Furthermore, even if this action were legitimate, the statutory window for imposing these tariffs has closed. These actions further underscore that Congress should take up my legislation that would reassert congressional authority regarding imposition of national security tariffs.”
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 25 - Dec. 1:
After a surprise tweet from President Donald Trump that he would implement tariffs on Brazilian steel and on Argentinian steel and aluminum (see 1912020002), the agency in charge of Section 232 actions declined to say when a Federal Register notice would follow to put the tweet into action. The department also declined to say if importers can bring in products in sectors where the quotas are already full while waiting for the Federal Register notice. Commerce also didn't say if importers can apply for exclusions for the items. Currently, exclusions against quotas are allowed, but they are not allowed to be taken until this quarter, even though the quotas fill up quarter-by-quarter.
CBP continues to look at the “subsidiary factors” when reviewing country of origin under the Trade Agreements Act despite a 2016 Court of International Trade decision that discounted the use of such factors in substantial transformation analysis, Sheppard Mullin lawyers said in a Nov. 25 blog post. The CIT case, which found an Energizer military flashlight to be of Chinese origin under TAA, “reasoned all the imported components retained their individual names and material composition or shape as a result of the post-importation assembly process,” they said in the blog post. Even though “substantial transformation appears to be more of an uphill battle than ever before, CBP still is relying heavily upon those 'subsidiary factors' that were disfavored in Energizer,” the lawyers said.
Laser phosphor displays imported by Prysm for integration into a display wall system are classifiable as finished monitors, and not parts of monitors, the Court of International Trade said in a Nov. 26 decision. The LPDs are each capable of displaying an image, and can’t be considered parts of a larger whole because there is no uniform configuration of which a single LPD can be considered a part, CIT said.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 18-24:
An importer’s owner and executive can’t be automatically held liable for customs fraud penalties only by virtue of their position in the company, the Court of International Trade said in a Nov. 25 decision. Specific facts must link the corporate officer to any allegations of customs fraud, CIT said as it granted a motion to dismiss a penalty case brought against an apparel importer and its owner.