This case involved a domestic steel producer challenging the International Trade Commission's preliminary negative determinations of material injury in an antidumping investigation concerning certain pipes and tubes imported from Japan under the Trade Agreements Act of 1979. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the agency record and remanded the matter, ruling that the Commission's decisions were not in accordance with law. The Commission had improperly defined the relevant domestic industries by aggregating distinct product lines and had exceeded its statutory authority by reopening and reconsidering its preliminary determination after the mandatory 45-day period had expired. The court held that the 45-day statutory deadline is mandatory and that the Commission lacks power to extend it through reconsideration based on additional evidence.
This case involved U.S. Customs officials in Miami and Savannah rejecting surety bonds from approved insurers Old Republic, Peerless, and North America without providing notice or conducting the revocation proceeding required by 31 C.F.R. § 223.17, after the insurers allegedly failed to pay certain claims. The insurers sued for review and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the bond rejections. The Court of International Trade, exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(4), granted the injunction after finding that the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm from loss of customers and business, while the Customs officials lacked authority to bypass the regulatory process. The court also overruled the defendants' motion to dismiss and extended the injunction nationwide to other districts.
This case involves a motion to disqualify attorneys representing Korean steel nail importers in a challenge to the International Trade Commission's negative injury determination in an antidumping proceeding. The court considered whether an attorney who previously served as an adviser to an ITC commissioner during the preliminary investigation, with access to confidential information, could participate in the litigation, along with his law firm. The court decided that both the attorney and his firm must be disqualified. The reasoning centered on the attorney's prior substantial responsibility in a substantially related matter as a government employee, creating a conflict due to access to privileged information, and the firm's failure to implement screening measures to isolate him from the case.
This case concerned the dutiability under TSUS item 807.00 of U.S.-origin fabric components in women's pants assembled in El Salvador, where Customs had denied allowances for components subjected to buttonholing and pocket-slitting operations. The importer argued that these steps qualified as assembly or operations incidental to assembly. The court held that the components were entitled to the duty allowance, finding that the operations involved only minor separations in pre-cut fabric during the assembly process, did not constitute further fabrication, added no new material, and represented a small fraction of total assembly costs. The decision rested on the statutory criteria, the timing and purpose of the steps within garment construction, and legislative history recognizing minor incidental operations even when they advance value.
The case concerned the tariff classification of dacron polyester fabric exported from the US to Canada in greige form for processing and then reimported. Customs classified the finished fabric under TSUS item 338.30 and assessed duty on its full value, while the importer sought classification under item 806.20 as articles exported for repairs or alterations, limiting duty to the value of the Canadian processing. The court ruled that the processing created a new and different article of commerce rather than constituting a mere alteration. It based this conclusion on differences in commercial nomenclature, price, texture, roll lengths, performance characteristics such as shrinkage and drapability, and end uses between the exported greige goods and the returned finished fabric.
The case concerned paint brush knots and brushes imported from Canada that contained nylon filaments of American origin, with the importer seeking duty allowances under TSUS item 807.00 for those components. The court held that the filaments did not qualify for the allowances because they were exported in bulk bundles and required further fabrication in Canada, including sorting into batches by weight and size before assembly with other parts such as ferrules and epoxy. This processing was deemed necessary to make the filaments ready for assembly, consistent with the requirements of item 807.00 clause (a) and prior precedent in E. Dillingham, Inc. v. United States. The district director's denial of the allowances was therefore upheld, and the actions were dismissed.
The case concerned the proper customs appraisal of imported cotton tissues (waistband-elastic) from West Germany, entered at New York in 1965 and valued on a constructed-value basis under 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(d). The government had added 36 cents per yard for royalty and trademark certification payments to the invoice price of 62 cents, while the importer argued those payments were not part of constructed value. Both parties moved for summary judgment, agreeing no factual issues remained. The court granted the importer’s motion and denied the government’s, ruling that the dutiable value was 62 cents per yard. It reached this result because the identical merchandise, parties, and issues had already been decided in the importer’s favor in a prior case between them, triggering collateral estoppel.
This case involves the tariff classification of imported decorative bird cage lamp sets from Hong Kong, which were classified by Customs under TSUS item 653.40 as illuminating articles subject to a 19% duty rate. The importer, L. Batlin & Son, Inc., sought reclassification under TSUS item 688.40 as electrical articles not specially provided for at an 11.5% rate, moving for summary judgment on the basis that the merchandise was identical to items previously ruled upon in Ross Products, Inc. v. United States. The court granted the motion, holding that the articles were primarily decorative rather than illuminating and that the precedent controlled the outcome. Defendant's attempts to raise issues of chief use and component material of chief value for alternative household article classifications were rejected due to insufficient evidence and failure to identify specific facts creating a genuine dispute.