Article 1, Clause 5, of the Constitution, the so-called "Export Clause," provides that "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State". This clause was an issue recently in case upon which the Court of International Trade ruled, Nufarm America's Inc. v .U.S.
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 U.S. v. Optrex America, Inc., the Court of International Trade considered the issue of 1592 negligence and the exercise of reasonable care, and concluded that there were genuine issues of material fact that required further adjudication.
In International Custom Products, Inc. ("ICP") v .U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the holding of the Court of International Trade, as the CAFC found a lack of jurisdiction, remanding the case with instructions for dismissal.
In U.S. v. Golden Gate Petroleum Co., the Court of International Trade (CIT) elaborates on its February 2006 decision concerning the same parties. In the prior case, the CIT ruled that Golden Gate was liable for over $1 million in unpaid duties. However, the Court did not decide whether interest was due, or the amount of such interest, and instructed the parties to negotiate and to come to an agreement. Because the parties proved unable to reach an agreement, the issue was returned to the Court for resolution.
The U.S. Association of Textiles and Apparel (USA-ITA) has reported that the Chinese government and two Chinese producers of coated free sheet paper filed suit in the Court of International Trade (CIT) on January 9, 2007 challenging the Department of Commerce (DOC) initiation of a countervailing (CV) duty investigation against these Chinese imports. USA-ITA states that the complaint charges that DOC does not have legal authority to initiate a CV case against China because it is currently considered a non-market economy. (See ITT's Online Archives or 12/19/06 news, 06121925, for BP summary of the ITA's request for comments on applying CV duties to imports from China.) (USA-ITA TDM, dated 01/10/07, www.usaita.com.)
In Timber Products Co. v. U.S., the Court of International Trade ruled on remand that certain Brazilian plywood made from wood of differing species is classifiable under HTS 4412.14.30 (1997, 8%), a residual provision for plywood, rather than under HTS 4412.13.40 (1997, GSP duty-free), which includes plywood made with at least one outer ply of tropical woods.
According to The Journal of Commerce, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Basham stated at CBP's 7th Annual Trade Symposium that the agency intends to implement rules requiring importers to provide additional data to identify high-risk ocean shipments - the 10 2 data - by the end of summer 2007. Basham stated that Customs is not going to implement all the data requirements at once, but will phase them in to minimize their impact. (JoC, dated 12/14/06, available at www.joc.com )
In Saab Cars USA, Inc. v. U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the Court of International Trade's (CIT's) decision to grant claims for duty allowances for port repair expenses and deny claims (except for one claim involving three vehicles) for duty allowances for warranty expenses.
The International Trade Administration has published a "Timken"1 notice stating that a recent Court of International Trade's ruling is not in harmony with the ITA's final results of AD duty administrative review for helical spring lock washers from China, for the review period October 1, 2002 through September 30, 2003, with respect to Hangzhou Spring Washer Co., Ltd. (Hangzhou).
In Motorola, Inc. v. U.S., the Court of International Trade (CIT) determined on remand that neither the liquidation of 900 bypass entries nor the issuance of two preclassification ruling letters constitutes "treatment" under 19 USC 1625(c)(2), as interpreted in light of 19 CFR 177.12(c)(1)(ii).