The Court of International Trade on Oct. 10 dismissed a challenge to the timeliness of a CBP demand for payment from a surety related to an importer’s unpaid antidumping duties on preserved mushrooms from China. Hartford Fire Insurance argued the six-year and 30-day deadlines for CBP’s demand ran out because it should have been calculated from the date of deemed liquidation in 2006, not from the date CBP actually liquidated the entries in 2011. CIT found it did not have jurisdiction over the case because the issue should have been raised in a protest and challenged in a denied protest lawsuit under 28 USC 1581(a), not under CIT’s “residual” jurisdiction under 28 USC 1581(i).
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 Oct. 2-8:
Irregularities on a single transaction bond issued to cover antidumping duties on Chinese garlic don’t mean the surety doesn’t have to pay out to CBP, the Court of International Trade said in an Oct. 5 decision. Handwritten changes to the bond after it was signed, in apparent violation of CBP’s regulations, don’t invalidate the bond, CIT said. And despite lengthy delays before the underlying entry was liquidated, the government’s lawsuit to collect was not filed too late, it said.
The Court of International Trade will end its reserve calendar procedures, in a change to its rules that takes effect Oct. 23. The amendment to CIT rule 83 creates a new “Customs Case Management Calendar” for challenges of protests denied by CBP, with a hard 24-month time limit, extendable to 48 months, unless the case is assigned, a complaint is filed, the case is consolidated, the case is suspended under a test case, or the case is voluntarily dismissed.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 25 - Oct. 1:
A customs broker may seek indemnification from an importer client during a Court of International Trade penalty case, even if the broker’s terms and conditions specify a different court for any lawsuits related to the broker’s services, the Court of International Trade said in a Sept. 29 decision. CIT has jurisdiction to hear all cross-claims for relief from liability on entries subject to a trade case, so UPS Supply Chain Solutions may sue its importer client Majestic Mills as part of a government penalty case related to entries on which UPS acted as broker, it said.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 18-24:
Door hardware with knobs that incorporate locks are classifiable as locks in the tariff schedule, the Court of International Trade said in a decision issued Sept. 21. The importer of the hardware, Home Depot, had argued it was classifiable as mountings and fittings for doors, and dutiable at a lower rate. CIT held that, though the hardware includes doorknobs that would be classified as mountings and fittings if imported alone, here the doorknobs acted as levers for a lock.
Locking pliers imported by Irwin Industrial Tool are classifiable in the tariff schedule as pliers, not vises or clamps, the Court of International Trade said in a Sept. 21 decision. Having already ruled in April against CBP’s liquidation of the imported locking pliers as wrenches (see 1704130035), the trade court found that the locking pliers are not classifiable as vises either, because they pivot on a central fulcrum and close by gripping the handles, rather than by turning a screw or lever.
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 15 denied another bid to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a gray market importer challenging Lever-Rule protections recently granted to Duracell Batteries (see 1701270015). This time calling the importer by its real name, Milecrest Corporation, after recently finding the company was not allowed to use the pseudonym XYZ Corporation (see 1709130007), CIT again ruled that Lever-Rule determinations to restrict imports of gray market goods may be considered customs rulings challengeable at the trade court. Duracell, which has intervened in the case on the side of the government and filed the motion to dismiss, did not raise any new issues “that would invalidate the court’s previous opinion regarding jurisdiction” issued in July in response to the government’s earlier motion (see 1707240031), CIT said.