Customs Law

Typically, I don't cover trade remedies cases here on the Customs Law Blog. But, now and then, something interesting happens on the trade side and it is worth a mention. That just happened. A little background is necessary. The Court of International Trade has exclusive jurisdiction to review certain decisions of the Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission relating to the imposition of antidumping and countervailing duties. When it does that, the CIT acts pretty much like a court of appeals; there is no trial, no witnesses, no objections and no findings of fact as there might be in a customs case. Rather, the CIT reviews the decision on the basis of the administrative record compiled at the agency. Generally speaking, if the agency decision is supported by substantial evidence and otherwise in accordance with law, the CIT will uphold the agency. When a party appeals one of these cases from the CIT to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the CAFC d

E&S Express Inc. and Simon Ying v. United States , is another of those exasperating cases where a technicality prevents a judgment on the merits. That said, let me absolutely clear that the technicality involved is unquestionably the law and not something the Court could or should have ignored. Nevertheless, the result stinks for the importer. Much like the most recent International Custom Products case involving imported white sauce, the sole question here is whether E&S has taken all the steps necessary to secure jurisdiction for the U.S. Court of International Trade to review a protest U.S. Customs and Border Protection denied. The two necessary steps are (1) a timely summons and (2) payment to Customs of all liquidated duties, fees, and taxes. It is the second prong that is the problem here. E&S imported wooden bedroom furniture from China, which is subject to an antidumping duty order. At the time of entry, E&S deposited the estimated antidumping duties. Subse