Importer Says CIT Shirked Obligation to Find True COO of Power Supplies
The Court of International Trade should reconsider its opinion on the origin of Cyber Power Systems (USA)'s uninterruptible power supplies because the court shirked its responsibility to arrive at the correct determination, the importer said in a reply brief. Even though the trade court ruled against Cyber Power's position that its power supplies are made in the Philippines, it did not take the next step to determine the goods' actual origin, making "no findings of fact regarding manufacture in China," Cyber Power said (Cyber Power Systems (USA) v. United States, CIT # 20-00124).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
"The days when a plaintiff’s claimed deficiencies of trial proof allowed this Court to summarily render judgment for the Government based on the statutory presumption of correctness are over," the brief said. "The Court must conduct whatever proceedings are required to determine the correct country of origin of the goods at bar. Plaintiff suggests that a partial retrial or rehearing is required to do so in this case."
Cyber Power staked its rehearing argument on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Jarvis Clark Co. v. U.S., in which the appellate court said CIT cannot uphold an unexamined CBP decision simply because it finds the plaintiff's evidence insufficient to prove its claim or because CBP gets a presumption of correctness. Due to this decision, Cyber Power said customs protest cases "are indeed more akin to a civil law judicial investigation than to a traditional English law adversary proceeding."
The importer said the court cannot "passively uphold a Customs determination simply because an importer’s evidence was in its view insufficient to allow the Court to glean the 'correct result,'" adding that the court has an obligation to develop evidence to get to the correct conclusion. In this case, that means the court must find the proper country of origin for the goods.
"It cannot seriously be argued that the trial record contained evidence sufficient to allow this Court to render a 'correct' determination that, as a matter of fact and law, the goods at bar are products of China," the brief said, adding that the "only evidence received regarding manufacture in China is that certain printed circuit board assemblies ('PCBAs') were produced in China." Cyber Power said that not "a scintilla of trial evidence" shows that the units were made in China.