The Court of International Trade remanded Sherri N. Boynton v. U.S. to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to review and determine an appropriate penalty based on the Court's findings as to the charges against Boynton that it had determined to be violations of Customs rules and regulations.
In Samuel Aaron, Inc. v. U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of International Trade's decision that it lacked jurisdiction in this case, as Aaron's protest was not filed within 90 days of re-liquidation.
In Heartland By-Products, Inc., v. U.S., the Court of International Trade has ruled on remand that entries covering imported sugar syrup from Canada must be liquidated at the non-tariff rate quota duty rate specified in an advance ruling issued by U.S. Customs as required by the judgment initially issued by the CIT in Heartland I.
In U.S. v. Ford Motor Company, the Court of International Trade ruled that the Customs was entitled to interest on any unpaid duties from the date of Custom's demand for payment until the original July 20, 2005 judgment (see Ford CIT Slip Op. 05-86).
The International Trade Administration has issued two notices amending the final antidumping duty determinations and the AD duty order on certain automotive replacement glass windshields from China in order to revise the AD duty rate of two companies, as there are now final and conclusive court decisions in these proceedings.
In U.S. v. National Semiconductor Corporation, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the Court of International Trade's final judgment and remanded the case to the CIT to determine an appropriate penalty for negligence and any prejudgment interest related to an underpayment of merchandise processing fees (MPFs) under 19 USC 1592 (See NSC III CIT Slip OP. 06-138).
In U.S. v. Inn Foods, Inc., the Court of International Trade ruled on remand from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that entries filed by Inn Foods covering imported frozen Mexican produce from 1987 to 1990 were undervalued, and these actions constituted a fraudulent violation under 19 USC 1592. (See U.S. v. Inn Foods, Inc., CAFC 04-1035.
In BASF Corporation v. U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit re-affirmed the decision by the Court of International Trade that an imported product identified as polyisobutylene-amine diluted in a saturated hydrocarbon solvent, with the trade name PURADD FD-100, is properly classified by its use, in HTS 3811.90.00.
In U.S. Tsubaki, Inc. v. U.S., the Court of International Trade granted summary judgment to Customs for shipments of roller chain from Japan imported by Tsubaki, ruling that they were all subject to the liquidation procedures as provided for in the 1984 version of 19 USC 1504(d), and with an exception of five entries, they were not eligible to be deemed liquidated by operation of law.
In Value Vinyls, Inc. v. U.S., the Court of International Trade reconsidered its classification decision, but denied the request to amend or change its ruling that certain plastic-coated material should be classified under HTS 3921.90.11 with a duty rate of 4.2%.