The government's service of German exporter Koehler on its U.S. counsel in a customs penalty suit was "improper and insufficient," leaving the Court of International Trade without personal jurisdiction over the company, Koehler argued in an Oct. 24 motion to dismiss. The company added that even if service was sufficient, the court has no personal jurisdiction over the company anyway, since it's a German firm and the U.S. allegations don't relate to any activity by the company in the U.S. (United States v. Koehler Oberkirch GmbH, CIT # 24-00014).
Customs Duty
A Customs Duty is a tariff or tax which a country imposes on goods when they are transported across international borders. Customs Duties are used to protect countries' economies, residents, jobs, and environments, by limiting the flow of imported merchandise, especially restricted and prohibited goods, into the country. The Customs Duty Rate is a percentage determined by the value of the article purchased in the foreign country and not based on quality, size, or weight.
A syringe importer said Oct. 23 that, without an injunction on a new 100% tariff on needles from China, it must either “discontinue 95% of business or suffer non-recoupable damages.” In response, the U.S. said that it had enough money to absorb the duties -- for example, by cutting its CEO's pay (Retractable Technologies v. U.S., CIT # 24-00185).
The U.S. and importer Katana Racing jointly moved to refer a customs penalty suit to court-annexed mediation before the Court of International Trade following the court's recent decision rejecting Katana Racing's renewed motion to dismiss. The parties said in light of the decision, they "believe that resolution to this litigation could potentially be reached through court-annexed mediation" (U.S. v. Katana Racing, CIT # 19-00125).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Commerce Department released its remand results Oct. 18 in a case regarding the antidumping duty review on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam, maintaining its earlier determinations but providing more detailed analyses for each (Catfish Farmers of America, et al. v. United States, CIT # 22-00125).
Surety firm Aegis Security Insurance Co. argued on Oct. 21 that the government's action seeking to collect unpaid duties on a Chinese honey entry imported in 2002 is barred by the statute of limitations or CBP's failure to issue the bill for the duties within a reasonable amount of time. Should either of these theories fall short, Aegis said it's entitled to judgment due to CBP's "inordinate and inexcusable delay in billing Aegis" and the fact that its reinsurer went insolvent, among other confounding factors, the company said (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 22-00327).
A German exporter of forged steel fluid end blocks brought a complaint Oct. 16 to the Court of International Trade arguing that the Commerce Department, in a review of the antidumping duty order on its products, illegally expanded the scope of the AD order to include forged steel products that weren’t fluid end blocks (BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. U.S., CIT # 24-00176).
In oral arguments Oct. 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit indicated that the plaintiff challenging an Enforce and Protect Act evasion finding whose entries have all already been liquidated was likely not going to succeed in reversing the dismissal of its case by the Court of International Trade (see 2208180045) (All One God Faith v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1078).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit last week held that tire retailer Texas Truck Parts & Tire was the "beneficial owner" of tires imported by Chinese manufacturers and, as such, is liable for excise taxes on the imports (Texas Truck Parts & Tire v. United States, 5th Cir. # 23-20588).
In response to a U.S. claim that it couldn't move for a motion on its pleadings before issues of fact were settled by discovery (see 2409260061), an importer of tubing for perforating guns said Oct. 15 that it was “impossible” for CBP to find that one of its products should have been classified under a different Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading between the time the importer sought a Section 232 exclusion request and the time it shipped its entry into the country (G&H Diversified Manufacturing v. U.S., CIT # 22-00130).