The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 5-11:
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.
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from April 5-9 in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
CBP did not liquidate imports of wooden bedroom furniture from China past a key six-month time limit, the U.S. Court of International Trade found in an April 9 opinion. Ruling in favor of the U.S. government, Chief Judge Mark Barnett found that CBP properly liquidated the furniture entries within six months of being notified by a message from Commerce that an injunction against the entries' liquidation was lifted. Barnett also found that the agency's reliquidation of another entry from importer Aspects Furniture International, following the entry's deemed liquidation without a notice to the importer, did not violate the pre-2016 version of the reliquidation statute.
Christopher Kane, partner at Simon Gluck, expressed optimism over a recent U.S. Court of International Trade ruling striking down an extension of President Donald Trump's Section 232 tariffs to aluminum and steel derivatives (see 2104050049). He believes the ruling spells good news for the massive litigation involving more than 3,700 companies challenging the expansion of the Section 301 tariffs on goods from China. Although based on a different law, Kane believes CIT's April 5 ruling demonstrates the court's willingness to hold the president to account over laws and regulations. In the case of the derivatives, the tariff expansion was eliminated because it was imposed after a 105-day period during which the president can impose Section 232 tariffs after receiving a report on the need for the duties from the Commerce Department.
Judge Mark Barnett has taken over as the chief judge of the U.S. Court of International Trade, following Judge Timothy Stanceu's assumption of senior status April 5 (see 2103160061), according to the court's website. Barnett joined the court in 2013 as a President Barack Obama appointee. He previously practiced in the international trade group at Steptoe & Johnson and served in the Office of Chief Counsel for Import Administration at the Commerce Department. He was the longest tenured judge at CIT at the time of Stanceu's move to senior status.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 29 - April 4:
President Donald Trump's addition of Section 232 tariffs on finished products of steel and aluminum was “invalid,” Court of International Trade Judges Timothy Stanceu and Jennifer Choe-Groves said in an April 5 ruling. The ruling is the result of a challenge from PrimeSource Building Products, which said the presidential proclamation that imposed the tariffs on steel and aluminum “derivatives” was improper because it was issued after the statutory deadline.
The Court of International Trade found that President Donald Trump violated procedural time limits when expanding Section 232 tariffs to steel and aluminum “derivatives,” in an April 5 decision granting refunds to steel nail importer PrimeSource Building Products. Judges Timothy Stanceu and Jennifer Choe-Groves, as part of a three-judge panel, struck down the tariff expansion, ruling that the president exceeded his authority to impose tariffs when he elected to extend them to derivative products. Judge M. Miller Baker, the remaining judge on the panel, dissented from the opinion.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 22-28:
CBP incorrectly reversed its own Enforce and Protect Act determination that an importer evaded antidumping duties on frozen warmwater shrimp from India, a U.S. shrimp industry group said in a complaint filed at the Court of International Trade March 23. The Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee (AHSTEC), made up of shrimp producers and wholesalers, said CBP should have stuck with its original finding that Minh Phu transshipped Indian shrimp through Vietnam, in part because the exporter did not provide enough information on its supply chain.