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

Ruling of the Week 2015.8: Old Jersey and Pitcairn Island

Image
For today's ROTW, I set out looking for a ruling dealing with some far off and preferably warm location. Turns out that, with the exception of coastwise transit issues, there are no Customs and Border Protection rulings involving Pitcairn Island or any of several Pacific Ocean microstates including Tuvalu , Niue , and Kiribati . Pitcairn Island What I did find is an interesting question about the country of origin marking for products of the Bailiwick of Jersey Island, Channel Islands. The ruling is HQ 561938 (Mar. 18, 2002). For those of you who may not know, Jersey is an island off the coast of Normandy, France. It is an independent international actor and not part of the U.K. although the U.K. is responsible for its defense and external relations. Also, the Queen is the Head of State in her capacity as "the Crown in Right of Jersey." It is, according to the U.S. Department of State, a " Crown Dependency " along with the Isle of Man and the Bailiwick o...
Read more

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

Ninestar and UFLPA Exhaustion

Image
Exhaustion is a key doctrine in administrative law. When applicable, it requires that a party unhappy with an agency’s determination complete the administrative appeal process before turning to the courts for judicial review. Requiring exhaustion typically promotes judicial efficiency by ensuring that disputes are resolved at the agency and, if they are not, that there is a complete record of the agency process. Exhaustion also ensures that the judiciary respects the executive agencies and their expertise.  There are, on the other hand, times when the courts will find that exhaustion is not necessary or appropriate. Such is the case in  Ninestar Corporation et al. v. United States  et al., a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade.  Ninestar is also interesting because it is one of the first cases in the CIT involving the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, known as UFLPA. In my hiatus from active blogging, I missed the rise of UFLPA as a major compliance t...
Read more