Gilda Toasts US in Court

Gilda Industries v. U.S. has been going on for a while now. The underlying issue is whether the U.S. properly assessed retaliatory duties on Gilda's imported toasted breads as part of the EC-Beef Hormones dispute. In this version of the case, Gilda is claiming that the authority to impose those duties expired in 2007 and it wants a refund of duties it improperly paid.

The genesis for this case is a dispute between the U.S. and the European Commission over a rule prohibiting the importation of hormone treated beef into Europe. The WTO found the ban to lack a scientific basis and authorized U.S. retaliation. The U.S. implemented that retaliation in the form of 100% duties on a number of products including toast (which, by the way, I find an odd product to import).

Under the law (specifically 19 USC sec. 2417(c)) any retaliation in effect will automatically expire after four years unless the affected domestic industry requests an extension. In an earlier effort to get out from under the duties, Gilda lost because a request had been made. Now, four years later, it appears no such request had been made. According to the government, the retaliation did not expire by operation of law because the USTR failed to provide notice of that possibility.

The Court of International Trade (via Senior Judge Musgrave) disagreed. According to the Court, the statute clearly states that retaliation is limited to four years absent a request for extension. Thus, the interested industry should have known of the possibility. Further, other sections of law relating to the USTR clearly link public notice to USTR action). Consequently, the Court did not want to insert such a linkage where Congress had not.

Thus, the retaliation expired by operation of law in 2007. Duties paid as a result to the Beef Hormone dispute after July 29, 2007 were improperly collected. The Court ordered the entries reliquidated to provide refunds to the importer.

So, if you have been paying duties under this retaliatory regime, fire up your lawyers. You might have a refund coming your way. The U.S. will almost certainly appeal and there is no guarantee that this case will stand. But, you should still consider getting your claim before the CIT. Failing to do so in a timely manner might result in your inability to recover at all.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl
Read more

Target on Finality

Image
In the last post , about the Federal Circuit’s very important decision on due process and allegations of evasion of antidumping duties, I made a snarky, offhand comment that the government believes “liquidation is magic.” That was in the context of the government arguing that Customs’ liquidation of entries mooted an appeal, thereby taking away the importer’s right to further judicial review. I said that knowing full well that I still needed to write this post summarizing Target Corp. v. United States in which Target made what I want to be a valid and righteous argument that Customs’ improper liquidation of entries at a favorable rate of antidumping duty prevents the Court of International Trade from ordering Customs to collect the legally applicable duties. But it turns out that while liquidation is an important legal step, in at least one unusual circumstance it is not sufficiently powerful to overcome the full force of an Article III court. Understanding this case requires a lot
Read more

CAFC: EAPA Process Really Does Violate Due Process

Image
Hot on the heels of my complaining about how the EAPA law and process is stacked against importers, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an important decision that will have a major impact on how those cases work. If you are unfamiliar with evasion cases under the Enforce and Protect Act and how Customs and Border Protection handles them, go back and look at these two posts: Part 1 , Part 2. Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States , is the decision in an evasion case against Royal Brush involving pencils allegedly transshipped from China through the Philippines. Customs determined that there was evasion of an antidumping duty order based in part on evidence that was not disclosed to Royal. Specifically, Customs sent a representative to the facility in the Philippines to photograph the interior and provide a report. Customs refused to disclose all the photographs to Royal. Moreover, CBP's report concluded that the facility did not have sufficient capacit
Read more