Government Appeals International Custom Products Ruling on Notices of Action and Ruling Letters
The U.S. government appealed the Court of International Trade’s November ruling in International Custom Products v. U.S. on the legality of rate advancing entries of merchandise subject to ruling letters, without a notice and comment period. The case has been ongoing since 2005, after CBP issued a Notice of Action increasing ICP's duty liability on some white sauce entries by 2,400 percent, despite having issued a contrary ruling letter in 1999 on ICP's white sauce. After the appeals court overturned a CIT ruling against CBP on jurisdiction concerns, ICP filed its current challenge in 2007, arguing that the Notice of Action was in fact a revocation of the 1999 ruling letter, and CBP should have allowed for notice and comment pursuant to 19 USC 1625.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Because of the $300 million in duties at stake, as well as CBP concerns that an adverse decision would limit its flexibility to rate advance entries, the case was marked by a contentious trial. The government argued that ICP had obtained its ruling letter through fraud, and that the ruling letter didn't even cover ICP's white sauce. But CIT, questioning the credibility of some government witnesses, found that the ruling letter was valid and applied to ICP's entries. As the Notice of Action was an "interpretive ruling or decision" that revoked the earlier ruling letter, CBP should have allowed for notice and comment, CIT said. The court ordered a refund of duties on the one entry at issue in the case, with interest.
Email ITTNews@warren-news.com for a copy of the docketing notice.
(See ITT’s Online Archives 12112123 for summary of CIT’s November opinion, and 12121239 for report on the case and its implications for CBP and importers.)