The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled, in BenQ America Corporation v. U.S., to vacate a Court of International Trade decision to classify certain Dell™ LCD monitors1 as video monitors under HTS 8528 (5%) as opposed to duty-free automatic data processing (ADP) machines under HTS 8471. The CAFC remands the case to the CIT, which CAFC states should conduct a "principal use" analysis of the monitors to determine their correct classification.
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.
The International Trade Commission has reversed its views and is no longer recommending the addition of a new Chapter 98 U.S. note and amended tariff numbers that would provide duty-free treatment to certain utilitarian textile and other articles that incorporate a festive design, decoration, emblem or motif. U.S. Customs and Border Protection had recommended these changes in light of a 2007 note added to Chapter 95 and an earlier court decision, Michael Simon Design.
The Court of International Trade issued a second remand covering the antidumping duty administrative review of stainless steel bar from India for the February 2005 --January 2006 period, ordering the International Trade Administration to conduct individual examinations of at least two additional respondents, and to recalculate dumping margins for any and all remaining unexamined respondents (the ITA had initially reviewed only two out of eight prospective respondents). The court also ordered the ITA to complete its additional calculations in 300 days, rather than the 365 days the ITA requested, and denied motions by three respondents to withdraw their requests for review. (See ITT’s Online Archives or 12/09/09 news, 09120955, for BP summary of the prior CIT remand decision.) (Slip Op. 11-61, dated 05/26/11)
The Court of International Trade has ruled in Shah Brothers, Inc., v. U.S., that a 2009 amendment to 19 USC 1514 regarding U.S. Customs and Border Protection's tax collection authority over tobacco products, imported gutkha in this case, does not alter CBP's responsibility as the final agency decision-maker, and as a result, jurisdiction is not available under 28 USC 1581(i).
On May 25, 2011, a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee heard testimony from government officials1 on the enforcement of antidumping and countervailing duty laws. Officials stated that over $1 billion in AD/CV duties is uncollected, with most of it from Chinese firms. Changes to the “deemed liquidation” process, the new shipper rules, and the retrospective duty collection system were among the possible fixes discussed.
The Court of International Trade has ruled in U.S. v. American Home Assurance Co. (AHAC), that U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s suspension of liquidation is not invalid if it fails to notify the surety of the suspension.
Mid-Continent Nail Corporation, a domestic producer, challenged a ruling by the International Trade Administration that excluded nails in home tool kits from the scope of the August 1, 2008 AD order on certain steel nails from China. The Court of International Trade found the ITA has applied contradictory approaches in cases where merchandise covered by AD orders is imported in kits with non-covered items.
In a voluntary remand requested by the International Trade Administration in the antidumping duty administrative review of certain lined paper products from China for the period April 17, 2006 - August 31, 2007, the ITA recalculated the inland freight costs of Shanghai Lian Li Paper Products Co., Ltd., using net weights from data supplied by the respondent, despite some errors in the data (the errors did not benefit the respondent). The Association of American School Paper Suppliers challenged the revised approach, but the Court of International Trade found the trade group failed to demonstrate any error by the ITA, and ruled that the ITA’s calculations were supported by substantial evidence. (Slip Op. 11-48, decided 04/27/11, posted 05/09/11)
Korean producer Hyosung Corporation did not respond by the deadline to a quantity and value questionnaire from the International Trade Administration in the initial stages of the February 2008 - January 2009 antidumping duty administrative review of certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel (CTL) plate from Korea, then gave an incomplete response by fax only. The Court of International Trade dismissed Hyosung’s challenge to the 32.70% rate the ITA assigned it, ruling that the ITA was correct to reject the untimely and incomplete questionnaire, and finding that the adverse rate was supported by sufficient evidence. (Slip Op. 11-34, dated 03/31/11, posted 05/17/11)
Following the decision by the Court of International Trade to sustain the negative injury determination by the International Trade Commission on the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts thereof from Japan and the United Kingdom, the Timken Company moved to stay revocation of the orders prior to the completion of the third sunset review. However, the CIT found that Timken failed to make a sufficient case, and ordered the International Trade Administration to proceed with revocation of the two AD duty orders. (See ITT’s Online Archives or 04/25/11 news, 11042511, for summary of the ITC’s remand redetermination finding no injury to U.S. industry.) (Slip Op. 11-54, dated 05/13/11)