The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a finding by the Court of International Trade in favor of an International Trade Administration determination that mixed-wax candles imported by Target Corporation from China are “later-developed merchandise” that are legitimately included in the AD order on petroleum wax candles from China.
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.
On June 17, 2010, the Court of International Trade denied U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s request to reconsider1 its January 2010 remand decision, which ruled that broker penalties2 could not be imposed against UPS Customhouse Brokerage, Inc., as CBP had failed to prove at trial that it had considered all ten 19 CFR 111.1 factors when evaluating whether UPS had maintained responsible supervision and control.
In Michael Simon Design, Inc., Tru 8 d/b/a Arriviste, Inc., and Target Stores (a division of Target Corporation), v. U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of International Trade’s refusal to review a new Chapter 95 note added to the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule by Presidential Proclamation.
The Court of International Trade (CIT) decided the following antidumping and countervailing duty law determination in the first half of June 2010.
In Pacific Northwest Equipment, Inc., v. U.S., the Court of International Trade ruled that platform containers are free of duty under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8609.00.00, as containers specially designed and equipped for carriage by one or more modes of transport, and not under subheading 7326.90.85 as an article of iron or steel at 2.9% ad valorem.
On June 17, 2010, the Court of International Trade denied the request of U.S. Customs and Border Protection that it reconsider its remand decision denying the government's request for a rehearing to recover $75,000 in penalties imposed by CBP against UPS, for its alleged failure to exercise responsible supervision and control over its customs brokerage business.
In Dell Products LP, v. U.S., the Court of International Trade agreed with U.S. Customs and Border Protection that secondary batteries were properly considered other storage batteries under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8507.80.80 at 3.4% ad valorem and not duty-free as portable digital automatic data processing machines under HTS 8471.30.00, the classification that applied to the notebook computers with which the batteries were packaged.
In a test case, Sparks Belting Company, v. U.S., the Court of International Trade ruled that certain “conveyor belts” designed and used for the conveyance of food and other products were properly classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule under 5903.10.20 as plastic coated textile fabrics at 1.7% ad valorem, or as plastic sheets combined with textile materials 3921.90.25 at 5.6% ad valorem.
In BP Products North America Inc., v. U.S., the Court of International Trade ruled that a blended mixture of components known as 93 octane (premium grade) gasoline (“Conv. 93”) was properly classified as gasoline (motor fuel) under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2710.11.15 at 52.5 cents per barrel.
The Court of International Trade and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided the following antidumping and countervailing duty law determinations in the second half of May 2010.