Importer E.G. Plastics failed to pay antidumping duties on 25 entries of polyethylene retail carrier bags and now must pay $1.1 million plus pre-judgment interest. Court of International Trade Judge Gary Katzmann issued a default judgment against E.G. Plastics after the company failed to defend itself in court against allegations that it failed to pay the duties on bags imported between 2008 and 2009. “Because E.G. Plastics failed to protest the liquidations of the entries at issue and E.G. Plastics failed to appear, plead, or otherwise defend itself in this action, the court grants the Government’s motion for default judgment,” the decision said.
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 following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb.8-14:
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 16 ordered a cigarette rolling paper importer to pay a $239,946.40 penalty for negligent violations of Section 592 because of $5,296.37 in remaining unpaid excise taxes. Judge Gary Katzmann issued the default judgment against The Token Group after the importer failed to appear in court to dispute the charge that it hadn't paid the full $119,973.20 in excise taxes it originally failed to pay.
The Court of International Trade will use a “master case” to reduce the time and expense of duplicate filings in the more than 3,700 lawsuits against President Donald Trump's lists 3 and 4A Section 301 China tariffs, CIT Judge Mark Barnett said in a Feb. 10 order. Barnett also gave the government defense until March 12, 2021, to submit its first defense, barring no motions to extend time to file. These procedural steps pertain to the copious number of Section 301 cases that were assigned to a three-panel judge at CIT on Feb. 5 (see 2102050008).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb.1-7:
A three-judge Court of International Trade panel will oversee all cases tackling the legality of lists 3 and 4 Section 301 China tariffs, Chief Judge Timothy Stanceu said in an order signed Feb. 5. Judges Mark Barnett, Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves -- the three most senior active judges on the court -- were assigned to hear one of the largest mass filings in the court's history.
The White House announced its withdrawals of some nominations left over from the Trump administration. Those include the Jan. 3 nomination of Joseph Barloon, former general counsel at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, for a judge's seat on the Court of International Trade. He was first nominated in October 2020, then renominated because all nominations in front of the Senate expired with the seating of the new Congress in January. Also withdrawn was the Jan. 6 nomination of William Kimmitt, a former counselor to the USTR, to fill a vacancy on the International Trade Commission. He was first nominated in December 2020.
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 4 rejected a broad challenge to Section 232 tariffs on steel. Universal Steel Products, joined by several other importers, had challenged the Commerce Department report upon which all Section 232 steel tariffs were based, as well as President Donald Trump’s failure to set an expiration date for the tariff action, among other things. But the trade court found in favor of the government, holding the report was not a final action and could not be challenged, and that the president’s edict that the tariffs remain in effect so long as national security is threatened satisfied Section 232’s requirement that he set a “duration” for the tariffs.
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 4 denied a broad challenge to Section 232 tariffs on steel products (see 1912040033), finding against a group of steel importers that had challenged the initial proclamation that set the tariffs, as well as procedural steps that formed the basis for the action. One of several recent cases challenging the tariffs, this one differed in its focus on the Commerce Department report that preceded the tariffs, as well as the proclamation's failure to set an explicit expiration date. The trade court found in favor of the government on both issues, holding that the Commerce report was not a final agency action that could be challenged in court and that the law behind Section 232 does not require the president to decide a date when the tariffs will end.
The Commerce Department did not provide enough assistance to three exporters of Indian shrimp as required by law during antidumping duty administrative reviews, the Court of International Trade said in a Jan. 3 decision. During a review of frozen warmwater shrimp from India, Indian exporters Calcutta Seafoods, Bay Seafood and Elque & Co. were not granted sufficient help after requesting it from the Commerce, CIT said, ordering Commerce to reconsider the antidumping rates it placed on the three companies' shrimp imports, with specific instructions to reopen the administrative review to further help the importers provide adequate information for the review.