International Trade Commission Rejects AD/CV Duties on Truck and Bus Tires from China - Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt LLP
By a vote of 3 – 2, the United States International Trade Commission (“USITC”) decided that truck and bus tires (“TBT”) from China did not materially injure a domestic industry in the United States or threaten a domestic industry with material injury.
This vote means that additional antidumping duty (“ADD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) will not be imposed on Chinese TBT imports. In addition, ADD/CVD which importers have been required to deposit on TBT shipments entered in the past year will be refunded. Instructions will be issued by the Department of Commerce (“DOC”) to Customs in the near future instructing Customs officials to refund ADD/CVD to importers. Chinese producers and exporters (the China Rubber Industry Association and the Subcommittee of Tire Producers of the China Chamber of Commerce Metals, Minerals and Chemical Importers) were represented by GDLSK LLP throughout the USITC proceedings.
If the USITC had reached an affirmative decision, Chinese TBT importers would have been required to deposit ADD/CVD of between 23.38% and 66.27% with each entry. We note that ADD/CVD Orders remain in place for off the road tires (“OTR”) and passenger and light truck tires (“PVLT”), and that OTR and PVLT importers are required to deposit ADD/CVD on entries of those products.
The petitioners in the TBT case have the right to challenge the USITC’s negative decision in the Court of International Trade (“CIT”). If an action is filed in the CIT, a decision from the court would not be published for at least one year from now. ADD/CVD will not be collected on entries unless and until the CIT issues a final decision reversing the USITC. A final CIT decision reversing the USITC will apply to shipments entered on and after the CIT decision is published; it will not apply to shipments entered before publication. There is no formal timetable for litigation in the CIT and no time limit in which the court is required to issue a decision. GDLSK will be involved in the litigation and will advise clients as to what is taking place.
Petitioning unions can bring a new ADD/CVD case any time. As a practical matter, petitioners normally wait 1 – 2 years before refiling, because they need to establish that there has been a change in circumstances which will result in the Commission deciding that there is now material injury or a threat thereof. For TBTs, the possibility exists that the Petitioning Unions may file a new petition sooner, since a sixth Commissioner will be appointed in the near future, and had his/her vote been affirmative, the USITC would have found in favor of petitioners (3 -3 ties result in affirmative injury determinations). If a new petition is filed, ADD/CVD cannot be assessed retroactively on shipments entered prior to an affirmative preliminary determination in the new case (or 90 days prior thereto if critical circumstances are found).
CBP Publishes Updated Guidance on Post-Importation Claims for Preferental Tariff Treatment - Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt LLP
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) published a memorandum last month amending its previously issued guidance on filing post-entry claims for preferential tariff treatment. In August 2014 CBP had advised the trade community that post-importation preference claims would be reviewed in accordance with 19 U.S.C. §1520(d) (“1520(d)”). This statute identifies some, but not all, preference programs available in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, and requires all post-importation preference claims to be filed within one year of importation. Under CBP’s prior interpretation, preference claims made under programs not listed in 1520(d) could only be made at the time of entry or through post entry amendments (PEAs) or post summary corrections (PSCs). All post-importation claims under these non-listed preference programs made by 19 U.S.C. §1514 protests were rejected as non-protestable.
CBP’s updated guidance amends this policy based upon the Court of International Trade’s (“CIT”) decision last August in Zojirushi America Corp. v. U.S.[1] Under the new directive, CBP will permit importers to make post-importation claims for preferential treatment under programs not specifically covered by 1520(d) by the filing of administrative protests. CBP will also allow importers to refile administrative protests containing post-importation claims that had been rejected under its prior policy. These protests must be filed by August 14, 2017. Denied protests, however, cannot be refiled with CBP, and relief on these claims can only be obtained through the filing of court actions in the CIT. Finally, post-importation preference claims made under the programs specifically mentioned in 1520(d) continue to be governed by the procedures set forth in that statute.
We have excerpted below a table included in CBP’s new guidance summarizing which preference programs are covered by 1520(d) and which are governed by the new policy:
[1] Slip Op. 16-78 (Aug. 4, 2016) which held that certain duty free claims (in this case GSP) could be made for the first time in a protest of a liquidation of an entry.
ITA: Press Release - International Trade Administration
The CBP Trade Transformation Office (formerly ACE Business Office), in conjunction with the Office of Field Operations, has identified port codes associated to import facilities that are no longer active and will be deactivating the below final list of port codes. The trade will no longer be able to use these port codes on bills of lading for imports or in-bond movements.
During the week of February 27, 2017, the following Port Codes will be deactivated:
Houston Field Office:
2205: Corpus Christie TX Inactive
5302: Dallas, TX Inactive
5303: Fort Worth, TX Inactive
5304: Oklahoma City, Inactive
5305: Tulsa, OK Inactive
5307: Amarillo, TX Inactive
5308: Lubbock, TX Inactive
5379: George Bush INTCNTL/HOU
Miscellaneous Final Codes:
4775: Inactive Do Not Use
4776: Inactive Do Not Use
4777: Inactive Do Not Use
0499: Boston Cartage Control
2308: San Antonio, TX (Inactive)
3021: South Bend Raymond, WA
2581: McClellan Palomar Airport
USITC Institutes Section 337 Investigation of Certain Digital Television Set-Top Boxes, Remote Control Devices, and Components Thereof - U.S. International Trade Commission
The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has voted to institute an investigation of certain digital television set-top boxes, remote control devices, and components thereof. The products at issue in the investigation include set-top boxes and voice-enabled remote control devices used to make watching and using television systems, including interactive television systems, easier and more efficient.
The investigation is based on a complaint filed by OpenTV, Inc., of Mountain View, CA; Nagra USA, Inc., of San Francisco, CA; and Nagravision SA and Kudelski SA, both of Cheseaux-sur-Lausanne, Switzerland, on January 26, 2017. A supplement to the complaint was filed on February 13, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain digital television set-top boxes, remote control devices, and components thereof that allegedly infringe patents asserted by the complainants. The complainants request that the USITC issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The USITC has identified the following as respondents in this investigation:
Comcast Corporation of Philadelphia, PA;
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, of Philadelphia, PA;
Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC, of Philadelphia, PA;
Comcast Business Communications, LLC, of Philadelphia, PA;
Comcast STB Software I, LLC, of Wilmington, DE;
ARRIS International plc of Suwanee, GA;
ARRIS Group, Inc., of Suwanee, GA;
ARRIS Technology, Inc., of Horsham, PA;
ARRIS Enterprises LLC of Suwanee, GA;
ARRIS Solutions, Inc., of Suwanee, GA;
ARRIS Global Ltd. (formerly Pace Ltd.) of Saltaire, West Yorkshire, England;
Pace Americas, LLC, of Boca Raton, FL;
Pace USA, LLC, of Boca Raton, FL;
Universal Electronics Inc. of Santa Ana, CA;
Gemstar Technology (China) Co. Ltd. of Guangzhou, Guangdong, China;
Gemstar Technology (Qinzhou) Co. Ltd. of Qinzhou, Guangxi Province, China; and
Gemstar Technology (Yongzhou) Co. Ltd. of Baoying, Yanzhou, China.
By instituting this investigation (337-TA-1041), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The USITC’s Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC’s administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission.
The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time. Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.
FDA Approves Odactra for House Dust Mite Allergies - Food & Drug Administration
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved Odactra, the first allergen extract to be administered under the tongue (sublingually) to treat house dust mite (HDM)-induced nasal inflammation (allergic rhinitis), with or without eye inflammation (conjunctivitis), in people 18 through 65 years of age.
“House dust mite allergic disease can negatively impact a person’s quality of life,” said Peter Marks, M.D., Ph.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. “The approval of Odactra provides patients an alternative treatment to allergy shots to help address their symptoms.”
House dust mite allergies are a reaction to tiny bugs that are commonly found in house dust. Dust mites, close relatives of ticks and spiders, are too small to be seen without a microscope. They are found in bedding, upholstered furniture and carpeting. Individuals with house dust mite allergies may experience a cough, runny nose, nasal itching, nasal congestion, sneezing, and itchy and watery eyes.
Odactra exposes patients to house dust mite allergens, gradually training the immune system in order to reduce the frequency and severity of nasal and eye allergy symptoms. It is a once-daily tablet, taken year round, that rapidly dissolves after it is placed under the tongue. The first dose is taken under the supervision of a health care professional with experience in the diagnosis and treatment of allergic diseases. The patient is to be observed for at least 30 minutes for potential adverse reactions. Provided the first dose is well tolerated, patients can then take Odactra at home. It can take about eight to 14 weeks of daily dosing after initiation of Odactra for the patient to begin to experience a noticeable benefit.
The safety and efficacy of Odactra was evaluated in studies conducted in the United States, Canada and Europe, involving approximately 2,500 people. Some participants received Odactra, while others received a placebo pill. Participants reported their symptoms and the need to use symptom-relieving allergy medications. During treatment, participants taking Odactra experienced a 16 to 18 percent reduction in symptoms and the need for additional medications compared to those who received a placebo.
The most commonly reported adverse reactions were nausea, itching in the ears and mouth, and swelling of the lips and tongue. The prescribing information includes a boxed warning that severe allergic reactions, some of which can be life-threatening, can occur. As with other FDA-approved allergen extracts administered sublingually, patients receiving Odactra should be prescribed auto-injectable epinephrine. Odactra also has a Medication Guide for distribution to the patient.
Odactra is manufactured for Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corp., (a subsidiary of Merck and Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, N.J.) by Catalent Pharma Solutions Limited, United Kingdom.
The FDA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, protects the public health by assuring the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products for human use, and medical devices. The agency also is responsible for the safety and security of our nation's food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, products that give off electronic radiation, and for regulating tobacco products.
Tobacco Importer Sentenced to Seven Years in Prison - TTB.gov
On Monday, February 27, 2017, Gitano Pierre Bryant, Jr., 56, of Palmetto Bay, was sentenced to a consecutive term of 48 months' imprisonment for fraudulently evading $13 million in Federal taxes on imported cigars. Bryant, who was on probation at the time of the offense, was previously sentenced to 36 months' imprisonment for violating the terms of his probation.
Bryant was also ordered to pay over $9 million in restitution.
A copy of the press release may be found on the website of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida; click
here to view it.