The Court of International Trade on April 5 dismissed swaths of an importer’s broad challenge to the assessment of antidumping duties under a subsequently invalidated AD duty order, finding that importer only had standing to challenge AD duties on entries it itself imported and couldn’t seek reliquidation of entries before the revocation’s effective date.
Federal Universal Service Fund
The FCC's Universal Service Fund (USF) was created by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to fund programs designed to provide universal telecommunications access to all U.S. citizens. All telecommunications providers are required to contribute a percentage of their end-user revenues to the Fund, which the FCC allocates for four core programs: 1. Connect America Fund, which subsidizes telecom providers for the increased costs of offering services to customers in rural and remote areas 2. Lifeline, which directly subsidizes low-income households to help pay for the cost of phone and internet service 3. Rural Health Care, which subsidizes health care providers to offer broadband telehealth services that can connect rural patients and providers with specialists located farther away 4. E-Rate, which subsidizes rural and low-income schools and libraries for internet and telecommunications costs The Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) administers the USF on behalf of the FCC, but requires Congressional approval for its actions. Many states also operate their own universal service funds, which operate independently from the federal program.
Latest News on the Universal Service Fund
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 25-31:
Pet carriers imported by Quaker Pet Group are classifiable as “other” made-up articles of textiles under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 6307, the Court of International Trade said in a March 29 decision. Having already ruled the pet carriers aren’t containers of heading 4202 because pets aren’t “items” (see 1802120015), the court found the carriers are mostly textile materials and aren’t classifiable elsewhere in the tariff schedule.
The right to a trial by jury does not apply to the determination of penalty amounts for customs violations, the Court of International Trade said in a decision issued March 26. While the jury can decide whether an importer is liable for penalties under 19 USC 1592, the determination of how large a penalty a guilty importer must pay is up to the judge, CIT said.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 18-24:
An appeal of the Court of International Trade’s recent decision finding Section 232 duties constitutional will be filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to avoid any distraction caused by the government’s likely opposition to a direct appeal to the Supreme Court, said Alan Morrison, a George Washington University law professor and the American Institute for International Steel’s lead counsel in the case. A three-judge CIT panel on March 25 ruled against the trade group and a pair of steel importers in their challenge to the Section 232 tariffs imposed in 2018 on iron and steel, finding itself bound by four-decade-old precedent that held Section 232 duties are not an excessive delegation of power (see 1903250032). “We think that a direct appeal to the Supreme Court is possible, but it would [be] opposed by the Government and therefore be a distraction,” Morrison said. The AIIS initially requested the three-judge panel because it would allow a direct Supreme Court appeal (see 1806270036).
The American Institute for International Steel will appeal a March 25 Court of International Trade decision that found Section 232 tariffs on iron and steel products to be constitutional and left them in place, a lawyer representing the trade group said in an email. In that decision, CIT had found itself bound by precedent and unable to overturn the tariffs, despite some concerns over whether they violate the separation of powers principle of the Constitution.
The Court of International Trade on March 25 denied a bid to declare Section 232 tariffs unconstitutional in a lawsuit brought by the American Institute of International Steel and other steel importers. A 1976 Supreme Court decision had found Section 232 to be a permissible delegation by Congress of its tariffs-setting powers to the president, and while the three judge CIT panel expressed some concerns, they were “beyond this court’s power to address, given the Supreme Court’s decision,” CIT said. Judge Gary Katzmann penned a separate “dubitante” – a step below a dissent -- noting that, while he agreed that the trade court could not deviate from the Supreme Court’s ruling, he had “grave doubts” about its real world implications.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sustained a Court of International Trade decision on a Commerce Department scope ruling that found curtain wall units imported separately by Yuanda for the same construction project are covered by antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China (A-570-967/C-570-968). "We see neither legal error nor insufficient evidentiary support for the ultimate Commerce determination, and we therefore affirm the Court of International Trade’s decision." CIT in 2017 held that curtain wall units may be subassemblies that are not subject to duties, but that Yuanda’s units need further fabrication before assembly, disqualifying them for the exemption (see 1712210051).
Plastic Apple iPad 2 “Smart Cover” cases are classifiable in the tariff schedule as articles of plastic, not as accessories for automatic data processing machines, the Court of International Trade said in a decision released to the public March 19. Apple had argued for its classification as an accessory because it also functions as a stand, but CIT agreed with a CBP ruling that found the cases are explicitly excluded from classification in Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States heading 8473.