| Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. US (June 1, 2022) The US Court of International Trade (CIT) dismissed the lawsuit brought by the importer and the consignee that sought a refund of Section 232 steel tariffs that the importer deposited with CBP for pipe manufactured by the consignee in Turkey. Pursuant CBP protocols (CSMS message), the importer first secured a tariff exclusion from the Bureau of Industry and Security and then filed a Post Summary Correction (PSC) with CBP requesting a refund. CBP rejected the PSC claiming that the importer failed to tie its entries to the tariff exclusion. The importer then filed a protest, which CBP also rejected. Protests, and lawsuits based on denied protests, are normally allowed only after liquidation, but the CIT had suspended liquidation of the relevant entries because of pending lawsuits filed by other parties in the CIT. Not knowing when liquidation would come, the importer and consignee sued in the CIT and demanded that CBP refund its Section 232 deposits and argued that 19 USC § 1520 allowed for such refunds before liquidation. The CIT concluded that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear the laws suit because both the protest and the lawsuit were premature and that CBP had not absolutely rejected the importer’s PSC but had merely requested additional information. The CIT concluded with a detailed retelling of an old Saturday Night Live skit performed by Gilda Radner and Chevy Chase. The relevance of the story to the CIT’s holding is a matter of interpretation. Midwest-CDK v. US (May 20, 2022) An importer imported merchandise from foreign manufacturers into Canada, where merchandise was stored until sold. After receiving a sales order, merchandise was transported from the importer’s Canadian warehouse to the United States for delivery to customers with shipments. CBP appraised the merchandise under transaction value, but the importer claimed that transaction value was not proper because that the merchandise was not for exportation to the United States at the time of sale. Deferring the issue of the correct appraisement method, the CIT sided with CBP and found that the merchandise was for exportation to the United States at the time of sale. |
