Changes to reliquidation procedures recently enacted by Congress don’t affect reliquidations that occurred before the law took effect in 2016, the Court of International Trade said in a court decision released to the public on May 31 (here). The deadline for any reliquidations before the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act was signed into law on Feb. 24, 2016, is 90 days after notice of liquidation is given to the importer, not 90 days after the liquidation itself, it said.
A Commerce Department antidumping duty review of a Chinese exporter of steel nails was valid, even though notification requirements were not met and the Chinese exporter did not defend itself in the review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said on May 30 (here). Affirming a Court of International Trade ruling issued in April 2016 (see 1604250033), the appeals court found Suntec was effectively notified of the administrative review when the initiation notice was published in the Federal Register, even though the domestic manufacturer that requested the review did not serve the request directly on Suntec, as required by regulation.
An Italian radial ball bearing exporter that changed its name can't use a company-specific antidumping duty rate because the company didn't go through a successor-in-interest review with the Commerce Department, CBP said in a March 21 ruling (here). Avio, a U.S. company that purchased ball bearings from its parent company Avio S.p.A in Italy, challenged CBP's AD rate assessment and requested reliquidation in 2012 over some 2009 and 2010 entries. Those entries received an "all-others" rate of 69.98 percent due to an AD order on ball bearings from Italy. FiatAvio, the predecessor to Avio, received a final reseller rate of 3.13 percent in 1992.
The Court of International Trade on May 30 (here) denied a surety’s challenge to CBP’s extensions of liquidation on several entries while the agency conducted NAFTA verifications. International Fidelity Insurance contended that CBP’s investigation, which eventually found the textile entries did not qualify for NAFTA treatment, was rife with unreasonable delays, and that the entries it bonded should have been deemed liquidated because the extensions of liquidation were not justified. But finding CBP’s investigation “continual, if not consistent,” the court found CBP’s decisions to extend were based on well-founded agency policy.
CBP released its May 31 Customs Bulletin (Vol. 51, No. 22) (here). While it does not contain any rulings, it does include recent CBP notices and Court of International Trade opinions.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 22-28:
Interest on past due customs duties and fees are subject to the same protest and judicial challenge procedures as those for any other duty or fee, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said on May 26 (here). Affirming a Court of International Trade ruling from August 2015 (see 1508200013), the appeals court held that, because interest on past due bills is protestable, American Home Assurance Company (AHAC) waived its right to challenge CBP’s interest calculations because it did not file a court challenge on a denied protest of the interest by the applicable deadline.
Tina Potuto Kimble resigned as clerk of the Court of International Trade as of July 14, she said. Kimble will move to Tata Steel Europe, where she will be deputy director for U.S. governmental and regulatory affairs. CIT posted an ad for the soon-to-be vacant clerk of court position (here).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 15-21:
CBP released its May 24 Customs Bulletin (Vol. 51, No. 21) (here). While it does not contain any rulings, it does include recent CBP notices and Court of International Trade opinions.