Justia International Trade Opinion Summaries

The plaintiff, a company seeking a refund of customs duties (drawback) on imported petroleum derivatives, filed a drawback claim with U.S. Customs on March 10, 2020, identifying forty-eight import entries and seeking over $1.3 million. Customs did not liquidate the claim within one year, but on April 30, 2021, it liquidated the claim at zero, determining the plaintiff was not entitled to any drawback. The company's appeal did not challenge the merits of this determination but argued that, by operation of law, its claim should have been automatically (“deemed”) liquidated at the amount it initially asserted, because Customs did not act within one year. The critical factual issue was that, while all underlying import entries had been liquidated by March 10, 2021, not all had become final, as finality requires an additional 180-day period after liquidation.The United States Court of International Trade reviewed the case, focusing on the statutory provisions governing when drawback claims are deemed liquidated under 19 U.S.C. § 1504. The court concluded that because the relevant import entries had not yet become final within one year of the drawback claim’s filing, the “deemed liquidation” provision of § 1504(a)(2)(A) did not apply. Instead, the alternative procedures of § 1504(a)(2)(B) governed, which require additional steps by the claimant that were not taken. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment for the government.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision. The appellate court held that when the conditions of § 1504(a)(2)(B) are present—specifically, when underlying import entries are not yet final—automatic deemed liquidation under § 1504(a)(2)(A) does not apply. Customs’ action in liquidating the claim at zero was therefore lawful, and the lower court’s judgment was affirmed. View "PERFORMANCE ADDITIVES, LLC v. US " on Justia Law

President Trump, after taking office, declared national emergencies over two foreign threats: the influx of illegal drugs from Canada, Mexico, and China, and persistent trade deficits affecting U.S. manufacturing and supply chains. Invoking authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), he imposed tariffs—25% on most Canadian and Mexican imports, 10% on most Chinese imports for drug trafficking, and at least 10% on all imports for trade deficit concerns, with higher rates for dozens of nations and frequent modifications.Two sets of plaintiffs challenged these tariffs. In the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Learning Resources plaintiffs won a preliminary injunction, as the court found IEEPA did not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The Government's motion to transfer to the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) was denied. In V.O.S. Selections, plaintiffs prevailed in the CIT, which granted summary judgment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed, holding that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate… importation” did not authorize such tariffs, as their scope, amount, and duration were unbounded.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the consolidated appeals. It held that IEEPA does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs, reasoning that the statute’s language—particularly “regulate… importation”—does not include the distinct power to tax or raise revenue through tariffs, a core congressional function. The Court emphasized the absence of explicit authorization and the constitutional structure reserving tariff powers to Congress. The Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s judgment in the V.O.S. Selections case and vacated the District Court’s judgment in Learning Resources, remanding with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. View "Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on whether imported plastic shelf dividers containing magnets are subject to U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty orders covering raw flexible magnets from China. Fasteners for Retail, Inc. imports shelf dividers composed of flexible magnets bonded to rigid plastic, which makes the magnets inflexible. The United States Department of Commerce had previously issued duty orders with scope language covering certain flexible magnets, regardless of shape, color, or packaging. Fasteners for Retail requested a scope ruling from Commerce to clarify whether their shelf dividers fell within the scope of these orders.Commerce issued a final scope ruling, finding that although the plain language of the duty orders might appear to include Siffron’s shelf dividers, prior scope rulings and interpretative sources (known as (k)(1) sources) provided further guidance. Based on these sources, Commerce determined that magnets rendered inflexible by attachment to other materials, such as plastic, are not included within the term “flexible magnets” under the duty orders. The United States Court of International Trade reviewed Commerce’s ruling and upheld it, finding Commerce’s determination reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case de novo, applying the same standard as the Trade Court. The court held that Commerce has discretion under the current regulations to consult (k)(1) sources in interpreting scope language regardless of apparent ambiguity. The court concluded that Commerce’s determination that Siffron’s shelf dividers are not “flexible magnets” under the duty orders was supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law. Therefore, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Court of International Trade, sustaining Commerce’s scope ruling that the shelf dividers are not subject to the duty orders. View "MAGNUM MAGNETICS CORP. v. US " on Justia Law

In this case, the central issue arose during a countervailing duty investigation into phosphate fertilizers imported from Morocco and Russia. The International Trade Commission (Commission) collected information through questionnaires sent to various parties, including domestic and foreign producers. The Commission’s longstanding practice was to automatically designate all questionnaire responses as confidential, regardless of whether the submitting party requested confidentiality or whether the information would qualify for such treatment under the relevant statute. This led to heavy redactions in the administrative record when the investigation was challenged in court.A Moroccan producer, OCP S.A., sought review of the Commission’s injury determination in the United States Court of International Trade (CIT). The CIT initially remanded the injury determination due to insufficient evidentiary support. When the remand record again included substantial redactions, the CIT held a hearing to scrutinize the Commission’s confidentiality designations. After reviewing arguments from the Commission and affected parties, the CIT concluded that the Commission’s practice of automatically treating all questionnaire responses as confidential was unauthorized by law. The CIT found that much of the redacted information was either publicly available, generalized, or outdated, and thus not entitled to confidential treatment, with only a small portion warranting protection.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the CIT’s Confidentiality Opinion and Order. The Federal Circuit held that the governing statute does not abrogate the common law right of public access to judicial records and that the Commission’s blanket confidentiality rule conflicts with statutory requirements, which demand public disclosure of non-confidential information and proper justification for confidentiality. The Federal Circuit affirmed the CIT’s order that required the Commission to comply with statutory standards for confidentiality and to cease automatic confidential designation of questionnaire responses. View "In re United States" on Justia Law

In a dispute concerning antidumping and countervailing duties on mattresses imported from several countries, the U.S. International Trade Commission determined that domestic industry suffered material injury from imports sold at less than fair value and from subsidized imports. The Commission treated certain information submitted in response to its questionnaires as confidential. After the Court of International Trade issued a public opinion sustaining the Commission’s injury determination, it did not redact information the Commission had deemed confidential. The Commission requested retraction of the public opinion and sought redactions for specific company names and numerical data, arguing these deserved confidential treatment.The parties jointly moved for redaction, relying on the Commission’s practice of treating questionnaire data as confidential and citing statutory provisions. The Court of International Trade denied the motion, reasoning that the information was either publicly available or not linked to specific entities, and that some claims of confidentiality had been waived due to procedural oversight. The court also emphasized the common law right of access and transparency, but did not specifically address the statutory authority for disclosure.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the denial of the joint motion. The court found the case moot because the allegedly confidential information had already been publicly disclosed more than two years earlier, rendering any relief unavailable. The Federal Circuit held that the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to mootness did not apply, as the companion case decided that day resolved the same confidentiality issues. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. View "In re United States" on Justia Law

The case centers on Midwest-CBK, LLC, a Minnesota-based retailer of Christmas ornaments. Midwest operated its corporate office in Minnesota and managed inventory and warehousing in Ontario, Canada. Merchandise was purchased from foreign suppliers for export to Canada, stored in Ontario, and sold to U.S. customers by Midwest’s U.S.-based sales staff. Orders were processed in Canada and shipped from Ontario to the United States, with purchase orders stating “FOB Buffalo, NY.” Between 2013 and 2016, Midwest entered merchandise with U.S. Customs and Border Protection using “deductive value.” Customs extended the liquidation deadline and conducted a regulatory audit to determine the correct valuation method, ultimately concluding that “transaction value” should apply, resulting in a recalculated duty assessment.The United States Court of International Trade reviewed Midwest’s challenge to Customs’ appraisement and its extensions of liquidation. Midwest argued that Customs lacked authority to extend liquidation beyond June 14, 2014, when all requested information had been provided, and asserted that the sales were domestic, not “for exportation to the United States.” The CIT found that Customs had a reasonable basis for the extension, given the ongoing audit and internal review, and determined that the transactions qualified as sales for exportation under the relevant statute. The CIT denied Midwest’s motion for partial summary judgment and granted summary judgment to the government.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the CIT’s decision. The court held that Customs properly extended the liquidation period and did not abuse its discretion. It further held that Midwest’s sales were “for exportation to the United States” under 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(1), making transaction value the appropriate basis for appraisement. The judgment of the Court of International Trade was affirmed. View "MIDWEST-CBK, LLC v. US " on Justia Law

Turkish steel producers, including Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., were subject to a countervailing duty (CVD) order after the U.S. Department of Commerce determined that the Turkish government subsidized steel rebar exports. During an administrative review, Commerce found that Kaptan sourced steel scrap, a key input for rebar, from several affiliates, including Nur, a shipbuilder. Commerce initially determined that Nur’s steel scrap was primarily dedicated to Kaptan’s rebar production, making Nur a cross-owned input supplier whose subsidies should be attributed to Kaptan, thereby increasing Kaptan’s CVD rate.The United States Court of International Trade (CIT) reviewed Commerce’s decision after Kaptan challenged the cross-attribution of Nur’s subsidies. The CIT found that Commerce had not adequately explained whether steel scrap was merely a link in the rebar production chain or addressed prior cases treating steel scrap as a byproduct. The CIT remanded the case for further explanation. On remand, Commerce developed a multi-factor analysis and ultimately reversed its position, finding that Nur’s steel scrap was a common, unprocessed input used in various products and industries, and that Nur’s primary business activity—shipbuilding—was not dedicated almost exclusively to producing rebar. As a result, Commerce concluded that Nur was not a cross-owned input supplier, and Kaptan’s CVD rate was reduced to a de minimis level. The CIT sustained Commerce’s remand decision.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the CIT’s decision for abuse of discretion and Commerce’s remand findings for substantial evidence. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that Commerce’s determination that Nur’s steel scrap was not primarily dedicated to Kaptan’s rebar production was adequately explained, supported by substantial evidence, and consistent with the applicable regulation. View "KAPTAN DEMIR CELIK ENDUSTRISI VE TICARET A.S. v. US " on Justia Law

Nutricia North America, Inc. imported five products from the United Kingdom that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classified as “medical foods” under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act. These products are specially formulated for individuals with specific metabolic or medical conditions, such as phenylketonuria, intractable epilepsy, and other disorders that require nutritional therapy not achievable through ordinary diet modification. The products are administered enterally, contain no active pharmacological ingredients, and are intended for use under medical supervision.Upon importation in 2014, U.S. Customs and Border Protection classified these products under subheading 2106.90.99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which covers “food preparations not elsewhere specified” and imposes a duty. Nutricia protested, arguing that the products should be classified as “medicaments” under heading 3004 of chapter 30, which would allow duty-free entry, or alternatively under a duty-free provision for articles for handicapped persons in chapter 98. Customs denied the protests, and Nutricia filed suit in the United States Court of International Trade (CIT). The CIT granted summary judgment for the government, holding that the products were excluded from chapter 30 by note 1(a) and thus properly classified under chapter 21.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the CIT’s decision de novo. The Federal Circuit held that Nutricia’s medical foods are properly classified under heading 3004 as “medicaments” because they are specially formulated for therapeutic or prophylactic uses under medical supervision. The court found that chapter 30 note 1(a) does not exclude these medical foods from heading 3004. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit reversed the CIT’s judgment and remanded for determination of the appropriate subheading under heading 3004. View "NUTRICIA NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. US " on Justia Law

Brita LP held a patent for a gravity-fed water filter system designed to remove contaminants, particularly lead, from water using filter media that included activated carbon and a lead scavenger. The patent claimed that the filter would achieve a specific performance metric, the Filter Rate and Performance (FRAP) factor, of about 350 or less. Although the patent described various types of filter media, such as carbon blocks and mixed media, it only provided working examples and detailed formulations for carbon-block filters that met the claimed FRAP factor. The patent also included test results showing that only carbon-block filters achieved the required performance, while mixed media filters did not.Brita filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) under section 337, alleging that several companies imported and sold water filters infringing its patent. After a Markman hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) found that the asserted claims met the written description and enablement requirements and determined there was a violation of section 337. Upon review, the ITC reversed the ALJ’s findings, concluding that the claims were invalid for lack of written description and enablement as to any filter media other than carbon blocks, and that the term “filter usage lifetime claimed by a manufacturer or seller of the filter” was indefinite.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s decision. The court held that the patent’s specification did not adequately describe or enable the full scope of the claimed invention, specifically for non-carbon-block filter media, and that substantial evidence supported the ITC’s findings. The court did not reach the issue of indefiniteness, as the claims were already found invalid. The disposition was affirmed. View "BRITA LP v. ITC " on Justia Law

Petitioners representing domestic honey producers requested that the U.S. Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission investigate whether raw honey imported from Vietnam and other countries was being sold in the United States at less than fair value, causing material injury to the domestic industry. During the investigation, both agencies made affirmative preliminary and final determinations supporting the imposition of antidumping duties. The agencies also found “critical circumstances,” meaning there was a surge of imports after the petition was filed but before the preliminary determination, which could undermine the effectiveness of any eventual duties. As a result, the suspension of liquidation and the imposition of duties were backdated by 90 days to cover these imports.The importers of Vietnamese honey and their trade association challenged the Commission’s final determination of critical circumstances in the United States Court of International Trade. They argued that the Commission improperly focused on the period before the antidumping duty order was issued, rather than considering whether the import surge would undermine the remedial effect of the order after its issuance. The Trade Court rejected this argument, upholding the Commission’s determination as both lawful and supported by substantial evidence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Trade Court’s decision de novo, applying the same standard. The Federal Circuit held that the statute does not require the Commission to focus solely on the period after the antidumping duty order is issued. Instead, the relevant inquiry is whether the surge of imports before the preliminary determination is likely to undermine the remedial effect of the order, starting from the suspension date. The court also found that the Commission’s findings were supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the Court of International Trade. View "SWEET HARVEST FOODS v. US " on Justia Law