This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The second comes in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the court issued a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

Kent International, Inc. v. United States (Precedential)

Kent International, Inc. (“Kent”) appeals the affirmance by the Court of International Trade (“Trade Court”) of the decision by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) denying Kent’s claims that the classification of its imported merchandise under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) heading 8714 violated 19 U.S.C. § 1625(c) by departing from a “treatment previously accorded” and was contrary to a de facto “established and uniform practice” (“EUP”) under 19 U.S.C. § 1315(d). Because the Trade Court erred in approving Customs’ use of bypass entries to show the absence of a treatment previously accorded, we reverse that ruling and remand. Because the Trade Court did not err in finding no de facto EUP, we affirm that part of the Trade Court’s decision.

Junious v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

Sanford Junious Jr. appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). The Veterans Court affirmed a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) denying service connection for back and knee disabilities. We dismiss.

Finizie v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Nonprecedential)

Sharon Finizie and Florence Kocher (collectively, “Petitioners”) appeal from the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“the Board”) dismissing their consolidated appeal under the Whistleblower Protection Act (“WPA”). We affirm.

Rule 36 Judgment