On December 30, 2004, the Court of International Trade (CIT) issued a preliminary injunction in U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel (USA-ITA) v. Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA) et al. which enjoins CITA, during the pendency of this action, from accepting, considering, or taking any further action on requests filed under CITA's textile safeguard procedures that are based on the threat of market disruption upon the elimination of quotas or safeguards on textile or apparel products from China.
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 Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA) has issued a notice announcing its determination that certain products, exempted from visa and quota requirements under previous arrangements, should also be exempted from safeguard quotas imposed on textile and textile products from China.
The U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel (USA-ITA) has issued a Textile Development Memo announcing that the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) will hold a hearing on December 20, 2004 on the USA-ITA's motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the Government from taking further action on any of the pending China textile safeguard petitions. (TDM, dated 12/06/04, www.usaita.com)
The U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel (USA-ITA) has issued a Textile Development Memo announcing that on December 1, 2004 it filed suit in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) to compel the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA) to provide U.S. textile and apparel importers and retailers with due process in the consideration of textile safeguards, including advance notice of any changes in the rules and an opportunity to know who is seeking the safeguard protection and what imported products are actually like or directly competitive with domestically-produced goods. (TDM, dated 12/01/04, www.usaita.com.)
On August 25, 2004, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a ruling in Intercontinental Marble Corporation v. U.S. affirming an earlier Court of International Trade (CIT) decision that "all stones that polish" are classifiable as marble. Like the CIT, the CAFC rejected Customs' arguments that marble should be defined by its geological definition rather than its commercial meaning.
CIT rules in favor of Customs' classification of Vitamin C drops. In Warner-Lambert Company v. U.S., the Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled in favor of U.S. Customs that Halls DefenseTM Vitamin C Supplement Drops were properly classified as sugar confectionary in HTS 1704.90.35 (6.1% or 5.8%, depending on the year of entry) rather than as medicaments in HTS 3004.50.5010 (duty-free).
CIT rules against Customs' classification of Pop Up Wackeroos. In Mattel, Inc. and Fisher Price, Inc. (Mattel)v. U.S., the Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled in favor of Mattel that "Pop-Up Wackaroos" is properly classified under HTS 9504.90.4000 (3.9%, 1994) as "game machines, other than coin- or token-operated, etc."
On August 27, 2004, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reversed the September 2003 Court of International Trade (CIT) decision in Russ Berrie & Company, Inc. v. U.S. The CAFC ruledthat certain holiday-themed jewelry is not properly classified under HTS 9505 (duty-free) as "festive articles".
CAFC Reverses Ruling that the Government's Litigation Filing is Untimely by 1 Day.In U.S. v. Inn Foods, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reversed the Court of International Trade's (CIT's) finding that litigation filed by the U.S. on December 14, 2001 to collect Customs duties and fees from Inn Foods for violations of 19 USC 1592 was untimely by one day.
In the September 8, 2004 issue of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Bulletin (CBP Bulletin) (Vol. 38, No. 37), CBP issued notices: (a) proposing to revoke a classification ruling on certain DVDs, and (b) revoking a classification ruling on certain nonwoven man-made material for use in blood filtration. CBP states that it is also revoking, or proposing to revoke, any treatment it has previously accorded to substantially identical transactions that are contrary to its position in these notices.