The Court of International Trade has dismissed All Tools’ complaints in All Tools, Inc. v. U.S., in which All Tools argued the deadline for filing its lawsuit seeking an order to reclassify certain paint brushes was “equitably tolled” because U.S. Customs and Border Protection had not issued a protest number in a timely manner.
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 Administration has posted a Commerce Department announcement that it will continue to issue liquidation instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of antidumping and countervailing duty administrative reviews.
In U.S. v. Callanish Ltd., the Court of International Trade ruled that an amended complaint1 filed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection in May 2010, to recover a civil penalty of $17,734,926 under 19 USC 1592 (fraud), had not provided sufficient information to establish that this was the correct penalty amount.
The International Trade Commission is publishing its final determinations that an industry in the U.S. is threatened with material injury by reason of imports from China and Korea of diamond sawblades and parts thereof that have been found by the International Trade Administration to be sold in the U.S. at less than fair value.
The Court of International Trade (CIT) and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) made the following antidumping and countervailing duty law determinations in the second half of October 2010.
In Trumpf Medical Systems, Inc, v. U.S., the Court of International Trade determined that certain surgical light systems were considered a diagnostic tool chiefly used as an aid to physicians in identifying a disease or illness, and were therefore duty-free under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9018.90.60 as electro-surgical instruments.
In National Fisheries Institute Inc., et. al., v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (NFI V), the Court of International Trade approved CBP’s second remand redetermination regarding the Enhanced Bonding Requirement that had applied to certain importers of shrimp products subject to antidumping duty orders.
In a September 7, 2010 decision, Alden Leeds Inc. v. U.S., the Court of International Trade denied U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s request to dismiss an importer’s claim for a refund of estimated antidumping duties deposited in excess of the final AD duty rate.
The Court of International Trade (CIT) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) made the following antidumping and countervailing law determinations, or released the public versions of such, in the first half of October 2010.
On July 7, 2010, the Court of International Trade sustained the International Trade Administration's results of redetermination on remand concerning the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on ball bearings and parts thereof from Germany (A-428-801).