CIT Denies Reconsideration Bid in Suit on Origin of Power Supplies
Importer Cyber Power Systems (USA) failed to identify a flaw in the Court of International Trade's ruling concerning the origin of the company's uninterruptible power supplies, Judge Leo Gordon said in denying Cyber Power's bid for CIT reconsideration. The judge said the request "is premised on the incorrect assumption that the court found that" the importer overcame the presumption of correctness linked to CBP's country of origin determination, which found that the products were made in China.
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 trade court ruled in the case that four of five models of the power supplies imported by Cyber Power did not undergo a substantial transformation and were thus of Chinese origin (see 2302270064). In moving for reconsideration, the importer said the court illegally attributed "evidentiary weight" to CBP's presumption of correctness, claiming that CIT cannot issue a decision in a denied protest challenge based on a finding that can't determine the proper country of origin (see 2303310002). The U.S. said reconsideration of Gordon's opinion would amount to a "do-over," adding that Cyber Power failed to prove that a substantial transformation occurred (see 2304210032).
The judge said that Cyber Power failed from the outset in its burden of proof related to the COO of the five models. Gordon also said that he agreed with the reasons the U.S. opposed the motion for reconsideration.
(Cyber Power Systems (USA) v. United States, Slip Op. 23-76, CIT # 20-00124, dated 05/16/23; Judge: Leo Gordon; Attorneys: John Peterson of Neville Peterson for Cyber Powe rSystems (USA); and Luke Mathers for defendant U.S. government)