ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Administrative Law Blogs -> Customs Law

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Administrative Law

: Customs Law

Gilda Toasts US in Court

ADVERTISEMENTS
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.

Full post as published by Customs Law on June 24, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected

Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations

California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid

Is Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen?
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Supreme Court): Does Obama meet the constitutional requirements to be President

Heart of Atlanta v United States
Supreme Court Decision: Civil Rights Act Protected by Interstate Commerce Clause

Unwed Fathers' Rights in Adoption
Landmark Cases in Adoption Law Shape Law with respect to Unwed Fathers

Lawsuits and Settlements

Ebay Fined
French Court Sets Fine at $61 Million

Personal Injury
Appeals Court Upholds Congressional Legislation

Tomato Salmonella
Sheetz Convenience Stores agrees to confidential out-of-court settlement with food poisoning victim.

National Association of Realtors
Settlement reached in broker listing antitrust lawsuit, pending court approval.

Missouri Attorney General's Office
$26,000 settlement reached in disability discrimination lawsuit, pending court approval.

Rutland School District
Double pay offered as part of class action wage dispute settlement, pending court approval.

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0133 secs (new cache)