Court of International Trade

CBP’s interpretation of the drawback statute and programming of its ACE Drawback Module led to an "absurd" rejection of substitution unused merchandise drawback eligibility for an importer of civil aviation equipment that disregards the basic structure of the tariff schedule, Spirit Aerosystems said in a March 24 motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade (Spirit Aerosystems v. U.S., CIT # 20-00094).

CBP can confer classification "treatment" on a good through consistent decisions at a single port, the Court of International Trade ruled March 24. Finding importer Kent International's imported child safety seats for bicycles should be classified as seats rather than bicycle parts, Judge Leo Gordon agreed with Kent that the Port of New York/Newark's consistent classification of them as seats constituted treatment on a "national basis" because the standard does not require treatment to have been applied at multiple ports, only that CBP not take inconsistent actions over a two-year period.

The Commerce Department released amended final results of the antidumping duty administrative review on crystalline silicon photovoltaic products (solar products) from Taiwan (A-583-853) covering the period Feb. 1, 2019, through Jan. 31, 2020, to bring calculated margins for two companies in line with the results of a Court of International Trade case challenging the original final results.

Two separate motions for summary judgment in a case involving allegedly defective plywood were shot down by Court of International Trade Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves in a March 20 opinion. Choe-Groves found that Bral had not sufficiently made a case under the customs regulations that all its imported plywood was defective and should have been appraised at a lower value, but neither had DOJ proven otherwise.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 13-19:

The Court of International Trade upheld the U.S. Trade Representative's Lists 3 and 4A tariff action under Section 301 on China in a widely-anticipated decision on March 17. After the tariffs were previously sent back over concerns of compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act, the USTR offered further explanations of its tariff decisions. Judges Mark Barnet, Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves held that these explanations were not made impermissibly post hoc and cleared APA requirements.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative complied with Administrative Procedure Act requirements when it set lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China, the Court of International Trade held in a much-anticipated opinion on March 17. After USTR provided more explanation of its tariff decisions on remand, judges Mark Barnett, Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves held that the explanations were not made impermissibly post hoc and cleared APA requirements.

The Court of International Trade doesn’t have jurisdiction to hear a case involving a textile company’s dispute with CBP, saying the company sought relief under the wrong statute, Judge Timothy Stanceu held in a March 10 opinion. The trade court found Printing Textiles, doing business as Berger Textiles, didn’t show why the denied protest challenge should be filed under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, and not Section 1581(a). Berger filed a notice of appeal the next business day.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 6-12:

The U.S. and importer Root Sciences struck a settlement in a case on whether Root's cannabis crude extract recovery machine imports should be seized as "drug paraphernalia," the importer said in a March 7 brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Under the settlement, CBP will release the merchandise to the plaintiff and Root will end its suit, according to the consent motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal (Root Sciences v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1795).