CIT assesses $17 million 1592 penalty for negligence in reporting transaction prices, lump sum payments, etc. In U.S. v. Ford Motor Company, the Court of International Trade (CIT) assessed a 1592 civil penalty against Ford in the amount of two times the loss of revenue (the maximum penalty for negligence under 19 USC 1592(a)(3)). The CIT's ruling resulted in a penalty of $17,151.923.60 plus interest, regarding vehicles, vehicle components, tooling, and related materials entered into the U.S. between January 1, 1987 through December 31, 1992, as Ford failed to demonstrate that it exercised reasonable care regarding certain assists and lump sum payments.
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.
CIT assesses $17 million 1592 penalty for negligence in reporting transaction prices, lump sum payments, etc. In U.S. v. Ford Motor Company, the Court of International Trade (CIT) assessed a 1592 civil penalty against Ford in the amount of two times the loss of revenue (the maximum penalty for negligence under 19 USC 1592(a)(3)). The CIT's ruling resulted in a penalty of $17,151.923.60 plus interest, regarding vehicles, vehicle components, tooling, and related materials entered into the U.S. between January 1, 1987 through December 31, 1992, as Ford failed to demonstrate that it exercised reasonable care regarding certain assists and lump sum payments.
Entry "deemed liquidated" as Customs did not act w/in six months of Federal Register notice of final results of AD administrative review. In International Trading Co. v. U.S., the CAFC affirmed the CIT's decision that Customs did not liquidate a March 1994 entry of shop towels from Bangladesh within the six month statutorily allotted time pursuant to 19 USC 1504(d). As a result, the CAFC concurred with the CIT that the entry was deemed liquidated at the rate and amount of duty deposited by the importer.
On June 28, 2005, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued its opinion in USA-ITA v. U.S. et. al. which upholds its stay (lifting) of the Court of International Trade's (CIT's) preliminary injunction that had prevented the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA) from considering, accepting, or taking further action on any China safeguard petitions based on the threat of market disruption.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) recently issued a Customs Bulletin notice requesting written comments by July 29, 2005 on its proposal to limit the application of the court decisions in Park B. Smith Ltd. vs. U.S. (Park) to the specific cotton woven table linens and cotton woven dhurry rug entries before the courts in that litigation. (See ITT's Online Archives or 07/01/05 news, 05070110 for BP summary.)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has issued a Customs Bulletin notice requesting written comments by July 29, 2005 on its proposal to limit the application of the decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and the Court of International Trade (CIT) in Park B. Smith Ltd. vs. U.S. (Park) to the specific cotton woven table linens and cotton woven dhurry rug entries before the courts in that litigation.
No negligence due to "approving" Customs ruling and "erroneous" Customs ruling. In U.S. v. Washington International Insurance Co. (WIIC), the Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled there was no basis for recovering $540,000 in duties from WIIC, the surety for importer(s) the U.S. had argued were, at minimum, negligent in classifying imported sweaters from Guam.
In Zomax Optical Media, Inc. v. U.S., the Court of International Trade (CIT) considered the classification of a digital mastering system imported in 1997 to manufacture CDs and DVDs that was purchased as a single operating unit under a single commercial invoice but was split by the carrier during shipment. The CIT concurred with Zomax that the system was properly classified under HTS 8479.89.85 as a machine for the manufacturing of video laser discs (duty-free).
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at Los Angeles/Long Beach has issued an administrative message (dated 05/25/05) which CBP sources state indicates that until a recent Court of International Trade (CIT) decision on chondroitin sulfate (CS) is final, or is appealed and is final, filers and importers must continue to classify CS under 3913.90.2000.
The International Trade Administration (ITA) has issued a notice stating that on March 23, 2005 the Court of International Trade (CIT) affirmed the ITA's redetermination on remand (redetermination) of the final AD duty determination with respect to stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Philippines.