Court of International Trade

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has issued a Customs Bulletin notice advising interested parties that, effective April 5, 2006, CBP is limiting the application of the decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and the Court of International Trade (CIT) in Park B. Smith Ltd. vs. U.S. (Park) to the specific cotton woven table linen and cotton woven dhurry rug entries before the courts in that litigation.¹

In Essex Manufacturing v. U.S., the Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled that certain imitation leather jackets, referred to as "stadium jackets", which have an outer shell of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic are classified under HTS 3926.20.90 (5%) as other articles of plastics and articles of other materials of HTS 3901 to 3914: articles of apparel or clothing accessories: other, rather than HTS 3920.20.60 (duty-free), which provides for plastic rainwear, including jackets, coats, etc. featuring a outer shell of PVC plastic with or without attached hoods, valued not over $10 per unit.

In Timber Products Co., v. U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) declined to affirm the Court of International Trade's (CIT's) determination that certain Brazilian plywood made from wood of differing species is classifiable under HTS 4412.14.30 (1997) a residual provision for plywood rather than under HTS 4412.13.40 (1997, duty-free), which includes plywood made in part from Virola wood. The case is remanded to the CIT as the CAFC believes it misconstrued the requirements for establishing a commercial meaning for "Virola."

In U.S. v. Golden Gate Petroleum Co., the Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled that Golden Gate Petroleum, Co. (Golden Gate) was liable for over $1 million in unpaid duties, even though the purchaser of the goods was its (now out-of-business) subsidiary, Golden Gate Petroleum International, Ltd. (Golden Gate Int'l), as Golden Gate was listed on the entry documents as the "importer of record."

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) states that it has removed from its Web site the Informed Compliance Publications (ICPs) on (1) classification of marble, and (2) enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPR).

In U.S. v. Ford Motor Company (Ford), the Court of International Trade (CIT) granted Ford's motion to dismiss certain U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) claims for a repayment of duties in the amount of $5,275,329 under 19 USC 1592(d), as the statute of limitations had expired.

In June 2005, the Court of International Trade ruled in International Custom Products (ICP), Inc. v. U.S., that a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Notice of Action (Rate Advance) reclassifying certain "white sauce" is null and void as CBP failed to observe 19 USC 1625(c) which requires, among other things, advance notice and comment when such an action would revoke or modify a binding ruling.

On February 16, 2006, the International Trade Administration (ITA) issued a notice amending its final affirmative antidumping (AD) duty determination for silicon metal from Russia, as there is now a final and conclusive court decision in this case.

In 2005, the Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled in U.S. v. Pan Pacific Textile Group et al. (Pan Pacific), that the principal is responsible for unpaid duties under 19 CFR 1592(d) stemming from fraudulent customs violations by his agent, who was the "importer of record" for certain tracksuits imported from China.

In Ammex, Inc. v. U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a Court of International Trade (CIT) ruling that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) wrongly revoked permission for Ammex to sell fuel from its duty-free store (a Class 9 Customs bonded warehouse) at Ambassador Bridge, where all products are sold to be exported.