Justia U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In 2004 Ford owned the British car maker Jaguar. In 2004 and 2005, Ford imported Jaguar-brand cars. On the cars’ entry into the U. S., Ford deposited estimated duty payments with Customs. Ford subsequently concluded that its estimates were too high and filed reconciliation entries seeking a refund. The total refund claimed, across nine disputed entries at issue, was about $6.2 million. The general one-year time period imposed for liquidating such entries had long expired when Ford filed suit, 19 U.S.C. 1504(a). The Court of International Trade rejected the complaint’s assertion of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1581(i), the Tariff Act’s grant of residual jurisdiction over matters concerning enforcement and administration of duty assessment. The Federal Circuit reversed, finding valid invocation of the court’s residual jurisdiction, as the importer could not have asserted jurisdiction under any of the other enumerated provisions of section 1581. Post-complaint efforts by Customs to clear the importer’s accounts did not undo such jurisdiction. View "Ford Motor Co. v. United States" on Justia Law

Jensen, a licensed customs broker, filed with Customs 308 protests on behalf of importers, seeking reliquidation of 1,529 entries of softwood lumber from Canada. More than two years later, Jensen inquired about the status of the protests. After nearly two months, Customs replied that the protests had been consolidated under a “lead protest” and that a draft decision letter had been prepared, but not finalized, and suggested that Jensen contact the Port of Detroit for a list of consolidated protests. Jensen expressed concern that Port of Detroit might not possess a complete list, as some protests had been filed in other ports. Receiving no response, Jensen filed suit in the Court of International Trade to preserve appeal rights. Customs subsequently stated, via email, that pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 177.7(b), it would not issue a ruling with respect to any issue pending before the Court of International Trade. Jensen then sought a writ of mandamus to compel Customs to rule on its protests. The Court of International Trade held that it lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1581(i), reasoning that Jensen could seek accelerated disposition of its protests by Customs under 19 U.S.C. 1515(b) and contest any subsequent denial. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Norman G. Jensen, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Avisma produces magnesium and titanium sponge in Russia. The process starts with a dehydration step. Most of the resultant raw magnesium is then processed into pure and alloyed magnesium, the subject of an antidumping order issued by Commerce in response to a petition by domestic producers. A portion of the raw magnesium is used to produce titanium sponge. After Commerce imposed a 15.77 percent duty, the Trade Court remanded the case. On remand, Commerce declined to alter the determination. The Trade Court then held that, when determining Avisma’s magnesium production costs for purposes of calculating the constructed value of Avisma’s magnesium, Commerce was required to take into account Avisma’s entire production process, which includes titanium, as well as magnesium. In its second remand determination, Commerce determined the constructed value of Avisma’s magnesium by taking into account Avisma’s entire production process, resulting in an antidumping duty of 8.51 percent. The Trade Court issued final judgment accordingly. The Federal Circuit reversed and reinstated Commerce’s earlier decision. The Trade Court erred in requiring Commerce to consider an affidavit by Avisma’s accountant that Commerce had determined was untimely. View "PSC VSMPO-Avisma Corp. v. United States" on Justia Law

The now-repealed Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (Byrd Amendment) allowed affected domestic producers (ADPs) to receive distributions of antidumping duties collected by the U.S., 19 U.S.C. 1675c. In order to be included on the list of ADPS, a domestic producer must have been either a petitioner or an “interested party in support of the petition” for an antidumping order. Domestic producers could show support either “by letter or through questionnaire response.” The U.S. International Trade Commission found that plaintiff did not qualify as an ADP because its final questionnaire response indicated that it took no position regarding the underlying petition, concerning dumping of crawfish tail meat from China. On remand, the ITC determined that plaintiff qualified, but U.S. Customs found that plaintiff was eligible for distributions for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, but that eligibility applied only to the extent that funds are either recoverable from the affected domestic producers who initially received them or are available in the Special Account. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that plaintiff is an ADP under the Byrd Amendment and should not be treated as a “second class” ADP. View "PS Chez Sidney,L.L.P. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n" on Justia Law

The Department of Commerce investigated Essar's participation in several programs, including its purchase of iron ore from India's government-owned National Mineral Development Corporation and participation in programs under India's Special Economic Zone Act, and found that Essar received countervailable subsidies (19 U.S.C. 1677(5)(E)(iv)) from the government of India for certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products. The Court of International Trade affirmed that holding, but remanded with respect to whether the company received subsidies through the Indian state of Chhattisgarh Industrial Program. The Federal Circuit affirmed with respect to the subsidies from the Indian government, but reversed with respect to the CIP. The lower court should have upheld Commerce's application of adverse facts against Essar; Essar did not act to the best of its ability during the review with regard to the CIP issue.View "Essar Steel, Ltd. v. United States" on Justia Law

In 1998, the Supreme Court held that the Harbor Maintenance Tax, 26 U.S.C. 4461-4462, was unconstitutional as applied to exports. U.S. Customs enacted procedures for refunds and established a separate HMT database with data from its ACS database, through which HMT payments had been processed. Customs discovered wide-spread inaccuracies in its HMT database, but was unable to make corrections related to payments made before July 1, 1990, because it no longer had original documents. Customs established different requirements for supporting documentation, depending on whether an exporter was seeking a refund of pre- or post-July 1, 1990 payments. Ford sought HMT refunds for both pre- and post-July 1, 1990, payments and has received more than $17 million, but claims that Customs still owes about $2.5 million. In addition to a FOIA Report of Ford’s pre-July 1, 1990 payments was drawn from information in the ACS database, Ford submitted an affidavit attesting that it was only claiming refunds of HMT paid on exports and declarations about the consistency and quality of its quarterly HMT payment records. Customs denied the claims. The Trade Court entered judgment in favor of the government. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The claims were insufficient because there still was high potential for error. View "Ford Motor Co. v. United States" on Justia Law

Domestic producers submitted an antidumping investigation petition to the Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission concerning imports of butt-weld pipe fittings from China and Thailand. Butt-weld fittings are forged steel products used to join pipe where conditions require permanent, welded connections. The petition identified products by inside diameter and compliance with certain ASTM and ANSI industry standards. Commerce issued a final determination that the products were being dumped. The ITC concluded that the domestic industry was materially injured by the dumped imports. The final anti-dumping duty order referred to fittings used to "join sections in piping systems." In 2009, King requested a scope ruling that butt-weld pipe fittings it imported from China were outside the scope of the order; its imported fittings are physically identical to those subject to the order, but were used "for structural use in applications such as handrails, fencing, and guardrails." Commerce concluded that the imports were within the scope of the order. The Trade Court concluded that the order was restricted to fittings used in piping systems. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the Trade Court gave inadequate deference to Commerce's scope ruling that the order did not contain such an end-use restriction. View "King Supply Co., LLC v. United States" on Justia Law

On GE’s complaint, the International Trade Commission conducted an investigation and, rejecting the findings of an ALJ determined that GE's 039 patent was not invalid by reason of obviousness or written description, that variable speed wind turbines imported by Mitsubishi do not infringe any of GE's patents, and that the domestic industry requirement is not met as to any of the patents. The Commission concluded that the Tariff Act, 19 U.S.C. 1337, was not violated. The 039 patent subsequently expired. The Federal Circuit affirmed that the 221 patent is not infringed, but reversed the determination of no domestic industry as to the 985 patent, and remanded. View "Gen. Elec. Co. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n" on Justia Law

In 2001, U.S. Customs classified Aromont's imported flavorings, derived from veal, chicken, duck, lamb, beef, fish, lobster, mushroom, or vegetable stock, under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2104.10.00 covering "[s]oups and broths and preparations therefor ... Other." Aromont argued that the flavorings should have been classified under subheading 2106.90.99 covering "[f]ood preparations not elsewhere specified or included," which carries a lower ad valorem tax. Customs denied the protest and liquidated the merchandise. The Trade Court found that the products are not covered by 2104 because they are not principally used as soups or broths, but in a variety of end uses. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Aromont made a strong showing with respect to actual use, physical characteristics, and cost. The government did not show that any other factors required a contrary result, or that there is an issue of material fact on any of the relevant factors.View "Aromont USA, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

In an action under the Tariff Act, 19 U.S.C. 1337, the International Trade Commission found unfair trade practices based on infringement of Epson's U.S. patents by importation and sale of ink printer cartridges produced in China by Ninestar and imported into and sold in the U.S. by entities including Ninestar's subsidiaries, The Commission issued a general exclusion order, limited exclusion orders, and cease and desist orders. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Final Orders prohibited importation and sale of infringing cartridges, including cartridges in the inventory of U.S. subsidiaries. Subsidiaries continued to import and sell cartridges that were subject to the orders. An Administrative Law Judge determined that Ninestar was in violation and levied a penalty under 19 U.S.C. 1337(f)(2). The Commission reduced the penalty. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding Ninestar China jointly and severally liable for the penalty ($55,000 per day, a total of $11,110,000) along with the U.S. subsidiaries. Ninestar was aware that refurbishing and reselling spent cartridges, not first sold in the U.S., would be patent infringement View "Ninestar Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n" on Justia Law