A bonded carrier of merchandise imported under a transportation and exportation entry is only responsible for ensuring delivery, but CBP may ask for documents showing exportation in order to prove the merchandise was delivered, said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 28 as it affirmed a judgment against C.H. Robinson. The carrier had been ordered by the Court of International Trade in 2012 to pay $106,407.86 in unpaid duties, taxes and interest for a shipment of wearing apparel from China that was allegedly diverted into the U.S. while en route to Mexico. The Appeals Court agreed that the CF 7512s stamped by a Laredo customs broker at an unmonitored CBP facility aren’t enough to prove C.H. Robinson fulfilled its responsibility to deliver the merchandise.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 9 found glass vases imported by Dependable Packaging are classifiable in the tariff schedule as decorative glassware instead of glass packaging, affirming a Court on International Trade Decision issued in early 2013 (see 13022104). CAFC agreed with the lower court’s holding that vases are generally classified as decorative glassware, and that Dependable Packaging’s products are vases.
Frozen tempura-fried vegetables are classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule as prepared vegetables, not other “food preparations,” said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 3 as it affirmed a lower court ruling. The importer of the vegetables, R.T. Foods, claimed that the processing of the vegetables, including battering and frying, took it out of the prepared vegetables category. But CAFC said the term “prepared vegetables” completely describes R.T. Foods’ tempura fried vegetables, so the product can’t be classified in a “catch all” provision for other food preparations.
The Court of International Trade on July 26 reluctantly declined to reconsider its denial of a constitutional challenge to the requirement that importers pay any duties owed before filing protest denial lawsuits. Despite the “absurdity” of the situation faced by International Custom Products (ICP), the now-defunct importer of white sauce is still required by law to pay $28 million in duties before it can file suit challenging CBP’s reclassification of 13 of its entries, it said.
Clarification: Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed most of a lower court ruling that found Riddell football uniforms to be apparel and not “sports equipment” (see 14062302), the court didn’t agree in all respects. CAFC found on June 20 that Riddell’s football uniforms that “do not come bundled with or otherwise incorporate any form of padding or protective inserts” still have the character of apparel, and can’t be considered sports equipment under the tariff schedule. But the Appeals Court overturned the classification of Riddell’s football girdles. CBP had originally classified them in subheading 6212.20.00 as “brassieres, girdles, corsets, braces, suspenders, garters and similar articles and parts thereof,” dutiable at 20%. But CAFC said they should instead be classified under subheading 6114.30.30 as “other garments, knitted or crocheted,” dutiable at 14.9%, because they don’t provide the support function essential to articles of heading 6212.
A proper extension of liquidation cannot be challenged in court before the entry liquidates, said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a decision issued June 24. Only if CBP doesn’t extend liquidation or gives improper notice to the importer can a lawsuit be filed to obtain a court order that says its entries have liquidated, said CAFC as it affirmed the Court of International Trade’s decision that it couldn’t hear a lawsuit related to extensions of liquidation while the entries were under CBP and ICE investigation.
The back-and-forth between domestic petitioners and the Commerce Department during antidumping and countervailing duty investigations is an important factor in deciding whether products are included within the scope of duties, said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 20 as it reversed a lower court ruling. The Court of International Trade had in 2013 found Fedmet’s magnesium alumina carbon bricks (MACBs) to be covered by AD and CV duties on magnesia carbon bricks from China, along the way affirming Commerce’s determination that the scope itself was ambiguous. But according to CAFC, communications between Commerce and Resco Products, the domestic company that had originally requested the duties, resolved all ambiguity in favor of excluding MACBs from the scope.
“Sports equipment” does not include clothing, confirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit June 20 as it upheld a lower court ruling that football uniforms imported by Riddell should be classified as apparel. Regardless of whether it is for exclusive use in a sport, apparel should be classified as apparel in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule unless it contains a “character-transforming” amount of protection, said CAFC. Riddell’s football uniforms, imported without pads, do not, it said.
In a move that could lower the “all others” countervailing duty rate on aluminum extrusions from China, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled on June 3 that the Commerce Department has to include the rates of voluntary respondents in the “all others” rate it calculates in countervailing duty proceedings.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 2 overturned a lower court ruling that had resulted in a higher antidumping duty rate for Chinese wooden bedroom furniture exporter Yihua Timber. The Commerce Department originally assigned Yihua a 29.89% AD duty rate in an administrative review covering entries in 2007. In response to a series of subsequent court remands, Commerce first dropped Yihua’s rate to 21.53% in 2011 before raising it “under protest” to 40.74% in 2012. CAFC now says the Court of International Trade decision that affirmed the higher rate erred in “substituting its own judgment” for Commerce’s, and reversed and remanded.