The Southern California U.S. District Court dismissed on June 19 a class action lawsuit alleging false “Made in the U.S.A.” claims on apparel sold in California by Lands’ End. The lawsuit was one of several ongoing cases in Southern California federal court that challenge retailers’ compliance with California’s strict U.S.-origin requirements. The district court recently denied motions to dismiss cases against Nordstrom (see 1411030049) and Macy’s (see 1504100014). However, the judge in the Lands’ End case, which stemmed from a consumer’s purchase of a necktie advertised on the Lands’ End website as “Made in the U.S.A.,” found several issues with the class action complaint and dismissed the case in its entirety. Among other problems, the complaint was too general, applying to all “apparel” sold throughout the U.S. Also, although Lands’ End advertised its neckties as “Made in the U.S.A.” on its website, the ties themselves were marked made in China. The case was dismissed without prejudice, so the complaint can be amended and refiled by July 6.
Interest accrues on customs bonds that are subject to ongoing lawsuits for recovery of antidumping and countervailing duties, ruled the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 17. Overturning a January 2014 decision from the Court of International Trade, the court found that the law on interest for bonds subject to lawsuits applies to all “duties,” and not just customs tariffs.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 8-14:
The Court of International Trade on June 12 gave CBP the go-ahead to set heavy bonding requirements for an importer of garlic from China (here), after putting the agency’s decision on hold in October. CBP had required Kwo Lee to post a single transaction bond at the $4.71/kg antidumping duty rate for the China-wide entity, rather than the $0.35/kg rate in effect for garlic produced and exported by the Chinese company listed on Kwo Lee’s entry documentation. Despite initially issuing an injunction to save Kwo Lee from bankruptcy while it considered the facts of the case (see 1410220063), CIT ruled that CBP was justified in its distrust that the garlic was actually produced by the exporter in question.
The Court of International Trade on June 9 dismissed two cases brought by importers challenging the allegedly late liquidation of entries subject to antidumping duties on wooden bedroom furniture from China. Hutchison Quality Furniture (here) and P.F. Stores (here) argued their entries should have deemed liquidated because CBP missed the six-month window for liquidating entries affected by a court decision. The companies said the error was the result of Commerce’s liquidation instructions. In two separate decisions from Judge Claire Kelly, CIT ruled that liquidation is CBP’s responsibility, and can only be challenged by filing a protest, paying the required duties, and bringing a case against the denied protest at CIT.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 1-7:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 25-31:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 18-24:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 11-17:
The requirement that importers pay duties before bringing tariff classification cases to court is an unconstitutional hurdle that allows CBP to disregard rulings “with impunity” if the duties imposed are too much for the affected importer to bear, said Gregory Teufel, attorney for International Custom Products (ICP), in oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 8. The pay to play scheme is an unconstitutional bar to importers’ right to due process because it allows CBP to deprive them of a “property interest” in the form of a binding ruling without any notice or the opportunity to be heard, said Teufel.