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.
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 Sept. 11-17:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 4-10:
An importer’s lawsuit on the tariff classification of child bicycle seats will proceed unchecked, after the Court of International Trade on Sept. 8 denied the government’s bid to dismiss portions of the case. Kent International says CBP defied its own established practice and did not afford Kent the same treatment given to other importers when it classified entries of Kent’s WeeRide Kangaroo child bicycle seats in heading 8417, dutiable at 10 percent, rather than a duty-free provision of subheading 9401.80. Though CBP had issued Kent a ruling in 2005 that the merchandise was dutiable at the higher rate, it had subsequently granted two of Kent’s protests and issued several rulings to other importers finding similar merchandise duty-free. The trade court found Kent’s complaint adequately raised questions of whether CBP’s decision to reliquidate subsequent entries at the 10% rate, before its eventual revocation of the other importers’ rulings through Customs Bulletin notices and comment, may have run against the agency’s own established practice and treatment.
An importer of gray market batteries currently embroiled in a customs lawsuit with Duracell cannot use an anonymous pseudonym to protect itself from trademark suits in other courts, the Court of International Trade said in a decision issued Sept. 12. Recently having ruled that the anonymous “XYZ Corporation” can challenge Duracell’s lever rule protections against gray market imports (see 1707240031), the court held the company must give up its pseudonym and file a new complaint with its true identity.
The Commerce Department didn't "adequately discuss the record evidence" submitted in support of Agilent's position in a scope ruling on mass filter radiators made by Agilent Technologies, the Court of International Trade said in a Sept. 1 ruling. The MFRs were the subject of a scope ruling last year (see 1608220063), in which Commerce said the products are subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China. Commerce must reconsider the issue as a result of the CIT decision.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 28 - Sept. 3:
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 29 upheld a Commerce Department scope ruling finding “hybrid” solar panels are subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells from China. The court agreed with the agency’s ruling that the addition of “thin film” to a crystalline silicon substrate does not exempt Sunpreme’s solar cells from AD and CV duties. However, the court directed Commerce to issue new liquidation instructions, finding the agency improperly ordered CBP to suspend liquidation prior to the beginning of the scope inquiry.
No new lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 21-27, nor were any appeals of Court of International Trade decisions filed that week at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to the CIT and CAFC Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) filing databases.
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 23 ordered a Texas company and its owner to pay a penalty for negligent misstatements on import documentation, though at a level far below what the government requested. Neither Deladiep or its owner and sole corporate officer John Delatorre appeared in court to defend themselves, but CIT nonetheless cut the penalty by 80 percent to $17,548.12, finding the violation of 19 USC 1592 did not warrant the $87,740.60 maximum.