The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed and affirmed the decision of the Court of International Trade in Processed Plastics Company v. U.S. ruling that two children's plastic Barbie and Winnie the Pooh backpacks and one children's Barbie beach bag could not be classified as toys.
toarticlessource documents
Search Primer
Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match together (e.g. "China import").
Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons to find either word (e.g. AD/CVD antidumping).
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., CBP +releases).
Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., -ruling).
Singular form: Use the singular form when doing multi-word terms (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls").
Shortest word form: When you have different word forms in a quoted term, include the shortest version if it is the last part of the expression (e.g., "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed and affirmed the decision by the Court of International Trade in BASF Corporation (BASF) v. U.S. that Lucarotin 1%, a food colorant containing 1% beta-carotene, should be classified in HTS 3204.19.35 ("Beta-carotene and other carotene coloring matter").
In Brother International, Corp. ("Brother") v. U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Court of International Trade, ruling that a misclassification was due to a mistake of fact, and that subsequent legal analysis using the General Rules of Interpretation did not make it a mistake of law.
In U.S. v. Ford Motor Company (Ford II), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reviewed a case similar to Ford I. In this case, Ford appealed a decision of the Court of International Trade (CIT), where Ford had been determined to have committed "gross negligence" by misrepresenting the value on entries covering tooling and stamping dies, which violated 19 USC 1484 and 1485.
In U.S. v. Ford Motor Company (Ford I), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) addressed Ford's practices related to providing information to Customs regarding post-importation adjustments to declared values of merchandise. The case concerned both "assists" (items incorporated into the imported merchandise which are provided by the buyer of the merchandise at reduced or no cost) and "direct" or "lump-sum" payments by the buyer (such as amounts paid pursuant to variable pricing agreements), all of which are dutiable.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) has announced its preliminary decision to apply U.S. anti-subsidy law to imports from China. According to Commerce, the decision alters a 23-year policy of not applying the CV duty law to non-market economy (NME) countries, and reflects China's economic development.
In Forest Laboratories, Inc. ("Forest") v. U.S., the United States Court of Appeals ruled that the portion of a ruling issued by Customs (NY D88210), that said "the rate of duty will be free" was outside the scope of Customs' authority, because although it has the authority to classify imported merchandise, Customs must impose duty only at the rate specified in the HTS.
In International Custom Products, Inc. ("ICP") v .U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the holding of the Court of International Trade, as the CAFC found a lack of jurisdiction, remanding the case with instructions for dismissal.