International Trade Today is a service of Warren Communications News.
Subscriber Login
Penalties and Courts
to
Refine Category Search
Clear Terms

Search Primer

Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match together (e.g. "forced labor").

Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons to find either word (e.g. AD/CVD CBP).

Acronyms: Use all capital letters (e.g., ACE).

Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., tariffs +Canada).

Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., FDA -alert).

Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "metal" instead of "metals" or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").

CIT Rules on Classification of Printers Imported Pre-2007
November 25, 2015 |Penalties and Courts

The Court of International Trade on Nov. 23 ruled in favor of an importer in a classification case that centered on now-obsolete sections of the tariff schedule (here), finding commercial printers imported by Xerox classifiable in the 2004 HTS under heading 8471 as units of automatic data processing machines. The government had argued the printers, subject to the 2004 HTS because they were imported that year, were instead classifiable as “other office machines” under heading 8472 because their speed and quality moved them out of the realm of mere office printers. However, CIT held to the long-held tenet that a tariff term must be interpreted to embrace all articles that subsequently come within its scope, finding the Xerox commercial printers have data processing capabilities that make them ADPs regardless of their print quality or speed. Tariff provisions classifying certain printers as ADPs were superseded by the World Customs Organization’s 2007 changes to the tariff schedule, which moved subheadings for laser printers to heading 8443 (see 06080430).

Topics:Harmonized Tariff Schedule, Court of International Trade
CIT Finds Reliquidation of Deemed Liquidated Entries Permissible, But Declines Ruling on Time Limits
November 18, 2015 |Penalties and Courts

The Court of International Trade on Nov. 16 ruled that CBP can reliquidate entries that have already deemed liquidated, but steered clear of the question – for now, at least – of how long CBP may wait before reliquidating, declining a motion from the surety Great American Insurance Company to dismiss a government bid to collect unpaid antidumping duties.

Topics:Court of International Trade
CIT Holds Importer to 'One Entry, One Protest' Rule
November 10, 2015 |Penalties and Courts

A second protest cannot be filed on an entry after denial of the first, even if filed by a different person, said the Court of International Trade on Nov. 9 as it dismissed an importer’s lawsuit challenging the valuation of two entries of pencils (here). Design International Group had already had two protests on the two entries denied on when it filed a third protest on the two entries, still within the 180 day time limit for protest filing. Though 19 USC 1514(c)(1)(D) generally allows only one protest for each entry of merchandise, Design International cited an exception for “separate protests filed by different authorized persons,” noting the first two protests were filed by its customs broker, while the third was filed by its attorney. CIT, citing previous case law, ruled that the exception for different authorized persons does is not applicable when the first protest has already been denied. According to the court, allowing additional protests when a protest has already been denied would allow an unending series of protests, each protesting the previous denial.

Topics:Court of International Trade