In its remand decision, U.S. v. UPS Customhouse Brokerage, Inc., the Court of International Trade ruled it would enter judgment in favor of UPS and deny the government's request for a rehearing to recover monetary penalties of $75,000 imposed by Customs due to UPS' alleged failure to exercise responsible supervision and control over its customs brokerage business, in violation of 19 USC 1641(b)(4).
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 Court of International Tradehasruled against further proceedingson an Appeal Court'sruling that invalidateda CIT decision thatUPS Customhouse Brokerage violated 19 USC 1641 by not exercising responsible supervision and control.The CAFC had ruled thatCustoms was required toconsider all 10 factors listed in 19 CFR 111.1 as a prerequisite. The CIT also ruled that a discretionary remand to Customs would be inappropriate. (U.S. v. UPS Customshouse Brokerage, Inc., Slip Op. 10-11, dated 01/28/10, available at http://www.cit.uscourts.gov/slip_op/Slip_op10/Slip%20Op%2010-11.pdf)
At the December 2009 Trade Symposium, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials and others discussed CBP's rulings process and certain international rulings issues.
In Chrysler Corporationv U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a Court of International Trade ruling that Chrysler was not eligible for a refund of Harbor Maintenance Tax1 on export payments made prior to July 1, 1990, as it failed to comply with Customs' HMT refund regulation 19 CFR 24.24(e)(4)(iv)(A), by not documenting the amount paid.
The following summaries highlight decisions of the Court of International Trade in the first half of January 2010 involved antidumping or countervailing duty law:
In Ford Motor Company v. U.S., the Court of International Trade ruled that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to address the merits of a post-entry claim for a NAFTA refund, as the late filing of the NAFTA Certificate of Origin is not a protestable "decision" of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
In Outer Circle Productsv U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuitreversed the Court of International Trade, ruling that bottle and jug wraps are properly classified as "table, kitchenwareof plastics, other" under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 3924.10.50 at 3.4 percent ad valorem and not as "bottle caseswith outer surface of sheeting of plastic or of textile materials, other" under subheading 4202.92.90, at 19.3 percent ad valorem.
The decisions of the Court of International Trade (CIT) for December 16-31, 2009 involved antidumping or countervailing duty law are summarized as follows:
In StoreWall, LLC,, v U.S., the United States Court of International Trade ruled that certain wall panels and locator tabs manufactured in Taiwan are prima facie classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 3926.90.98 as "Other articles of Plastics" at 5.3 percent and not under subheading 9403.70.80 or 9403.90.50 as "Other Furniture of Plastic and parts" at a free rate of duty.
The decisions of the Court of International Trade (CIT) and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) for December 1-15, 2009 involved antidumping or countervailing duty law are summarized as follows: