The following antidumping or countervailing duty law determinations at the Court of International Trade (CIT) and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) were decided in the first half of March 2010.
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.
In a test case, BenQ America Corporation, v. U.S., the Court of International Trade agreed with Customs, ruling that certain liquid crystal display monitors with a video interface are properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8528.21.70 as video monitors at 5% ad valorem.
The following determinations of the Court of International Trade and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the first half of February 2010 involved antidumping or countervailing duty law.
In LeMans Corporation, v. U.S., the Court of International Trade granted Customs summary judgment, ruling that certain motocross jerseys, pants, and jackets are properly classified in the HTS under Chapter 61 or 62 as wearing apparel and not within Chapter 95 as sports equipment.
In the February 10, 2010 issue of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Bulletin (Vol. 44, No. 7), CBP published a notice proposing to modify two rulings, and revoke one ruling and a treatment as follows:
In the February 10, 2010 issue of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Bulletin (Vol. 44, No. 7), CBP published a notice proposing to revoke two rulings and a treatment as follows:
The following determinations of the Court of International Trade in the second half of January 2010 involved antidumping or countervailing duty law.
In Presitex USA Inc., v. U.S., the Court of International Trade granted a motion to dismiss a case involving apparel imported from Nicaragua during a period when the U.S.-Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act, Trade and Development Act of 2000 (CBTPA) was in effect. The CIT ruled that the Court lacked jurisdiction over Presitex's 19 USC 1520(d) claim and refused to exercise jurisdiction over Presitex's 19 USC 4034 claim which was still under review by Customs.
In Totes-Isotoner Corporation v. U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of International Trade's judgment that Totes-Isotoner Corporation, which had challenged the constitutionality of different U.S. tariff rates for men's and other gloves, had standing to bring its claims but did not plead sufficient facts to state a claim of unconstitutional discrimination.
In U.S. v. Tip Top Pants, Inc. and Saad Nigri, the Court of International Trade dismissed for lack of evidence any claims against Mr. Nigri, in his personal capacity as a corporate officer of a two-person firm, for 19 USC 1592 negligence involving a single entry of apparel that Tip Top imported and claimed NAFTA benefits for.