The International Trade Administration (ITA) has issued a second amendment to the final antidumping (AD) duty determination on wooden bedroom furniture from China in order to revise the AD duty rate of one company, as there is now a final and conclusive court decision in the proceeding.
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.
Pursuant to the Offset Act1, also known as the Byrd Amendment, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has issued a notice in the Federal Register of its intent to distribute assessed antidumping (AD) or countervailing (CV) duties for Fiscal Year (FY) 2006. Written certifications to obtain a continued dumping and subsidy offset under a particular AD/CV order must be received by July 31, 2006.
In California Industrial Products, Inc. v. United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that based upon Customs' prior favorable treatment of substantially identical transactions and its failure to conduct notice and comment proceedings before changing that prior treatment, CIP was entitled to substitution manufacturing drawback (19 USC 1313(b)) on its steel scrap exports.
The International Trade Administration (ITA) has issued the amended final results of its antidumping (AD) duty administrative review and amended order pursuant to a final and conclusive Court of International Trade (CIT) decision regarding the September 1, 1999 through August 31, 2000 AD duty administrative review of freshwater crawfish tail meat from China.
In BASF Corporation v. U.S., the Court of International Trade agreed with Customs that PURADD FD-100, the trade name for polyisobutylene-amine diluted in a saturated hydrocarbon solvent, is properly classified in HTS 3811.90.00 as a gasoline detergent additive.
In Motorola, Inc. v. U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed with the Court of International Trade and ruled that Customs correctly classified eight models of circuits used in battery packs for cell phones under HTS 8536.30.80 (3.2%) as other apparatus for protecting electrical circuits.
The International Trade Administration (ITA) frequently issues notices on antidumping (AD) and countervailing (CV) duty orders which Broker Power considers to be "minor" in importance as they concern actions that occur after an order is issued and neither announce nor cause any changes to an order's duty rates, scope, affected firms, or effective period. The ITA also issues other notices which Broker Power considers to be "minor."
In Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. v. U.S., the Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled on the classification of various decorative home lighting fixtures imported by Home Depot in 2001 and 2002. This case consolidates nine court numbers and the common issue is whether the lighting fixtures' metal or non-metal (e.g. glass) components impart the essential character.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has issued revised guidance on the classification of festive articles due to its recent decision to limit the court decisions in the case Park B. Smith, Ltd., vs. U.S.(Park) to the litigated entries only, i.e., the specific cotton woven table linen and cotton woven dhurry rug entries before the courts in that litigation.
American Shipper reports that Ford Motor Company is off the hook for more than $5 million in duties and penalties after the Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled that the statute of limitations for paying the fine had expired, a decision that international trade lawyers familiar with the case stated could have implications for hundreds of other importers. (See ITT's Online Archives or 03/13/06, 06031325 for BP summary of CIT decision)(American Shipper, March 2006)