The International Trade Administration (ITA) has published a notice in the Federal Register stating that on July 27, 2004, the Court of International Trade (CIT) ordered the ITA to find that no countervailable subsidies are being provided for the production or exportation of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Thailand.
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 the July 14, 2004 issue of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Bulletin (CBP Bulletin) (Vol. 38, No. 29), CBP issued notices: (a) proposing to revoke two classification rulings on textile pillow covers with zipper closures, and (b) proposing to revoke a classification ruling on certain nonwoven man-made material for use in blood filtration. CBP states that it is also proposing to revoke any treatment it has previously accorded to substantially identical transactions that are contrary to its position in these notices.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has issued a CBP Electronic Bulletin Board (CEBB) notice stating that due to recent International Trade Administration (ITA) remand determination (pursuant to a Court of International Trade (CIT) decision), Polyplex Corporation Limited (Polyplex) is no longer excluded from the antidumping (AD) duty order on polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film, sheet, and strip from India.
Certain Certs breath mints are not preparations for oral or dental hygiene. In Warner-Lambert Company v. U.S., the Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled in favor of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that certain Certs Powerful Mints are properly classified under HTS 2106.90.99 (6.4%), which provides for food preparations not elsewhere specified or included.
In the June 2, 2004 issue of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Bulletin (CBP Bulletin) (Vol. 38, No. 23), CBP issued a notice withdrawing two intellectual property rights (IPR) rulings regarding a company logo, effective June 2, 2004, pursuant to a settlement agreement.
CIT rules in favor of Customs' classification of deodorizer distillate. In Cargill,Inc. v. U.S., the Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled in favor of Customs' classification of deodorizer distillate under the basket provision HTS 3824.90.2800 (6.5%) as "other mixtures containing 5% or more by weight of one or more aromatic or modified aromatic substances" rather than Cargill's classification claim of HTS 3823.19.4000 (3.2%) which provides for, among other things, "other industrial monocarboxylic fatty acids."
Customs failure to reliquidate entries does not constitute a 'mistake of fact.' In Fujitsu Compound Semiconductor, Inc. v. U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the Court of International Trade's (CIT's) earlier determination that Customs' failure to reliquidate certain entries of laser diode modules on its own initiative does not constitute a mistake of fact correctable under 19 USC 1520(c).
Customs Not in Contempt for Revoking is Approval for the "Duty-free" Sale of Fuels.In Ammex, Inc. v. U.S., the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the Court of International Trade's (CIT's) denial of Ammex's motion to hold Customs in contempt because it revoked approval of the sale of gasoline and diesel fuel on a duty- and tax-free basis at the Ambassador Bridge between Detroit, MI and Windsor, Canada.
On March 18, 2004, in DaimlerChrysler Corporation v. U.S., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reversed the Court of International Trade's (CIT) denial of 9802.00.80 duty benefits for the top-coat painting of certain trucks assembled in Mexico.
Value allowance regarding warranty expenses, port repair expenses. In Saab Cars USA, Inc. v. U.S., the Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled that, with respect to imported automobiles, most of Saab's claims for an allowance in value for warranty expenses were not adequately supported. However, the CIT did conclude that Saab should be granted an allowance in value for its port repair expenses.