The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 6-12:
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
A wide range of legal issues around CBP's new processes for antidumping or countervailing duty evasion allegations under the Enforce and Protect Act (see 1608190014) (EAPA) will require litigation to clarify, panelists said March 9 at the International Trade Update. For example, if CBP decides to impose higher bonding requirements on an alleged evader, can the importer then file for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction with the Court of International Trade to stop CBP, asked Jonathan Stoel, a lawyer with Hogan Lovells. Practical scenarios like that will need to be played out to give a better look at the possible strategies for lawyers involved, according to panelists at the event hosted by the Georgetown University Law Center.
No new lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 27 - March 5, nor were any appeals of CIT decisions filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit during that week.
Christmas and Thanksgiving dinners are not religious or cultural rituals for the purposes of tariff classification, the Court of International Trade said in a decision issued March 1 (here). That being the case, Christmas and Thanksgiving-themed dinnerware imported by WWRD should be classified according to its constituent materials, instead of alongside Seder plates and menorahs in a special duty-free tariff subheading for articles used in specific religious or cultural ritual celebrations, CIT said.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 20-26:
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 28 dismissed parts of an importer’s lawsuit challenging CBP’s tariff classification of its graduated compression hosiery, arm sleeves and gauntlets (here). While the classification of other models remains to be decided, CIT ruled importer Sigvaris cannot contest the classification of certain lines of compression hosiery and arm sleeves because they were not listed in supplements to the importer’s protests or were not listed in documents during the case’s discovery phase.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 13-19:
Roasted sunflower seeds are classifiable as food preparations, not as seeds, the Court of International Trade said in a decision issued Feb. 15 (here). Well Luck, the importer of the seeds, argued that a tariff provision for “sunflower seeds” includes all forms, including roasted and flavored seeds for snacking. CIT found that tariff provision only applies to sunflower seeds suitable for “general use,” excluding roasted seeds because they are unsuitable for planting.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 6-12:
The “Snuggie,” a popular “as-seen-on-TV” blanket with sleeves, is classifiable in the tariff schedule as a blanket, not as wearing apparel, the Court of International Trade said in a decision issued Feb.10 (here). Though capable of being worn, the Snuggie would not be worn “ordinarily” for everyday activities, CIT said. Snuggies are also marketed and sold as a blanket and used in a similar way, it said.