The Court of International Trade is proposing changes (here) to its rules that would eliminate its controversial “Reserve Calendar” and set time limits on CBP’s submission of entry documentation in cases challenging denied protests. Amendments to CIT Rule 83 (here) would replace the Reserve Calendar, where cases may remain indefinitely in 18-month increments, with a new “Customs Case Management Calendar.” There, cases would only be able to remain for four years without action before they are dismissed. Other changes would affect CIT Rules 41 (here), 56.2 (here), 73.1 (here), 82 (here), 83 (here), 84 (here) and 85 (here), Forms 9 (here) and 24 (here), and Specific Instructions for Form 24 (here). Comments are due July 26.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 19-25:
The Bureau of Industry and Security is denying the export privileges of a man convicted of "willfully conspiring to export, reexport, sell and supply from the United States electronic components to customers located in Iran, without the required U.S. Government authorization," BIS said (here). U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on May 20, 2016, convicted Ali Reza Parsa of violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, BIS said. The agency is suspending Parsa's export privileges until May 20, 2026.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 12-18:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 5-11:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 29 - June 1:
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.
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.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 22-28:
Any sale in the U.S. or abroad exhausts a patent holder’s rights to sue gray market importers for infringement, the Supreme Court said in a decision issued May 30 (here). Overturning a Federal Circuit decision from 2016, the Supreme Court held Lexmark cannot sue a remanufacturer of its printer cartridges, Impression Products, for importing and selling refilled cartridges that had already been sold in foreign countries and in the U.S. under a no resale agreement.