Importer Challenges Classification of Silicon Compounds at CIT
Importer AB Specialty Silicones' launched another case at the Court of International Trade to contest CBP's classification of its specialty silicone chemicals as organic-silicone compounds instead of as silicone compounds or organo-inorganic compounds. In a June 4 complaint, AB challenged the classification of one entry of its silicone compounds, arguing that it should only pay 3.7% duties for the product under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2910.90.9051 or 3% under subheading 3910.00.0000 (AB Specialty Silicones v. United States, CIT # 25-00099).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
AB filed a similar complaint in April, contesting CBP's liquidation of 90 of its entries under subheading 2931.90.9010, which carries a 25% Section 301 duty (see 2504160009). The goods at issue in both cases are "various silicon compounds" used in multiple industries, including personal care, roof coatings and chemical manufacturing, the importer said.
In an HQ ruling, CBP said the primary issue is whether the goods fit under heading 2931 as "organic-silicone compounds" or heading 3910 as "silicon compounds," noting that goods classified under Chapter 29 are precluded from being classified as Silicones under heading 3910. And if the goods are organic-silicone compounds under heading 2931, the next issue is whether the compounds are "organo-silicone compounds" under subheading 2931.90.9010 or "other organo-inorganic compounds" under subheading 2931.90.9051.
The agency said the imports were "organic compounds" and thus must be "chemically defined" to fit under heading 2931. Of the imported products, only one compound, Phenyl Trimethicone, wasn't chemically defined and therefore classified under heading 3910. The agency said the other eight products were all "chemically defined compounds" and thus classifiable under heading 2931.
In both of its cases at CIT, AB argued that CBP's decision is at odds with various other CBP rulings and is "premised on certain errors of fact." The errors include CBP's finding that the compounds in question have "one Si-O-Si linkage, when they in fact have none" and the agency's finding that the only difference between the compounds at issue and those considered in one of CBP's NY rulings is that the compounds at issue contain nitrogen atoms.