The Court of International Trade has issued new remand instructions in the May 2005-April 2006 AD duty administrative review of ball bearings and parts thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom, following an earlier decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that permitted the use of third-party costs for the first time under the order but required an explanation of the approach from the International Trade Administration.
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.
Domestic producers Clearon Corporation and Occidental Chemical Corporation challenged the International Trade Administration’s decision to exclude surrogate company financial statements that it found were tainted by Indian Government subsidies, and thus rely on a single surrogate firm’s data, in the June 2008 - May 2009 AD administrative review of chlorinated isocyanurates from China.
The Court of International Trade once again remanded to the International Trade Administration the agency‘s “separate rate” determination for Chinese producer/exporter Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd., in the August 2006 - July 2007 AD administrative review of floor-standing metal-top ironing tables and certain parts thereof from China.
Domestic producers Clearon Corporation and Occidental Chemical Corporation challenged the results of the June 2006 - May 2007 AD administrative review of chlorinated isocyanurates from China, objecting to the values used for urea, steam coal and ammonia gas by-products: the International Trade Administration sought a voluntary remand on the ammonia gas value as well.
The Court of International Trade has ruled in favor of U.S. Customs and Border Protection in Ford Motor Company v. U.S., denying Ford's claims for a refund of duties under NAFTA after untimely filing its NAFTA certificates of origin beyond the statutory one year limit. The CIT agreed with CBP that a valid refund claim exists only when the importer has filed all required documentation. As such, all components of a claim, including copies of the certificates of origin, must be filed within one year of importation.
In Cisco Systems, Inc. v. U.S., the Court of International Trade denied U.S. Customs and Border Protection's motion to dismiss challenges to its classification of "networking equipment" in protests filed by Cisco Systems, Inc. Customs argued that Cisco's protests were invalid because the use of the phrase "networking equipment" is too vague. However, the CIT stated that technical precision is not required in protests and that Customs could have sought more information from Cisco to evaluate its protests.
On November 7, 2011, the U.S. brought a case before the Court of International Trade to sue Pier Garden, Inc., a California clothing retailer, for $1.9 million in penalties for allegedly importing apparel during 2004-2006 that was made in China, but claimed to be made in Russia, in order to avoid a quota.
Korean producer Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. challenged the International Trade Administration’s model match, which made price comparisons between painted and laminated products, and its use of zeroing (disregarding non-dumped sales transactions in the margin calculation) in the August 2005 - July 2006 AD duty administrative review of certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Korea. Following two remands, the Court of International Trade affirmed the ITA’s revised model match, in which it ultimately conceded it would not treat painted, non-laminated corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products as identical to more costly laminated products in U.S.-to-home-market price comparisons.
Chinese producer Peer Bearing Company - Changshan and The Timken Company, a domestic producer, challenged the final determination of the International Trade Administration in the June 2007 - May 2008 AD duty administrative review of ball bearings and parts thereof from China. Peer contested the ITA’s method of calculating duty assessments, its decision that bearings further manufactured in Thailand were still Chinese, and its valuation of steel bar inputs; Timken objected to a too-low value for steel wire rod inputs.
The Court of International Trade has ruled in Horizon Lines, LLC v. U.S. that Horizon Line’s replacement of new anti-fouling coatings on a vessel's underwater hull that was performed overseas is not a dutiable foreign repair. The CIT found that such work is non-dutiable because the hull's paint system prior to replacement was in good order and was performed solely in order to comply with international anti-fouling rules. Therefore, the CIT stated that any repair was incidental to Horizon's intent for compliance.