The Court of International Trade (CIT) made the following antidumping duty law determinations in the second half of December 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.
The International Trade Administration is amending its final antidumping duty determination and order on 1-hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-diphosphonic acid (HEDP) from China (A-570-934) to reduce the estimated AD duty rate for one company.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection1 has posted a document providing the five current bond formulas for Activity Code 1 (Importer/Broker) continuous bonds, including those for imports subject to antidumping (AD) and countervailing (CV) duties, and for bonds posted by importers that have unpaid bills or delinquent accounts.
The Court of International Trade has denied a request by U.S. Customs and Border Protection for a stay of its judgment in National Fisheries Institute Inc. v. U.S. V, stating that CBP had not made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits should it bring an appeal.
The Court of International Trade (CIT) and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) made, or made public, the following antidumping and countervailing duty law determinations in the first half of December 2010.
In Roche Vitamins, Inc. v. U.S.,the Court of International Trade denied Roche’s motion for summary judgment on the classification of an imported product called BetaTab20%, because there was still a question as to the principal use of the product.
On December 27, 2010, the Justice Department announced that Alcatel-Lucent S.A. and three of its subsidiaries agreed to pay a combined $92 million penalty for bribing Costa Rican and Honduran government officials and Taiwanese legislators in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, prior to its 2006 merger with Lucent Technologies Inc.
The International Trade Administration has amended the final results of its countervailing duty administrative review of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India for the period of review January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 (C-533-821), to reflect a Court of International Trade (CIT) order.
In Ford Motor Company v. U.S., the Court of International Trade denied Ford’s protest of U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s refusal to refund harbor maintenance taxes1 that Ford allegedly paid on post-July 1, 1990 exports2. The CIT stated that Ford had not provided sufficient supporting documentation in its claim for a refund of the HMT.
On December 6, 2010, the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of International Trade’s determination that the government owed Horizon Lines, LLC a refund for duties imposed on certain work performed on the ocean carrier Hawaii while the ship was overseas.