U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has issued an interim rule on the time period and other requirements for requesting refunds of any excess customs duties paid on entries of a country's textile or apparel goods that are entitled to the retroactive application of preferential tariff treatment under the Dominican Republic - Central America - U.S. Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA).
In Ammex, Inc. v. U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a Court of International Trade (CIT) ruling that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) wrongly revoked permission for Ammex to sell fuel from its duty-free store (a Class 9 Customs bonded warehouse) at Ambassador Bridge, where all products are sold to be exported.
In Xerox Corporation v. U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) ruled that the Court of International Trade (CIT) was correct in dismissing Xerox's protest of U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP's) liquidation of 21 entries of electrostatic photocopiers and wire harnesses from Mexico, as Xerox did not timely file claims for NAFTA preferential treatment.
In Orlando Food Corp. v. U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has reversed a Court of International Trade (CIT) decision, ruling that the U.S. government must pay interest to Orlando in connection with the refund of overpaid duties on a 1989 entry.
In the November 23, 2005 issue of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Bulletin (CBP Bulletin) (Vol. 39, No. 48), CBP issued notices: (a) proposing to revoke a classification ruling on a certain silk capelet, and (b) modifying or revoking six classification rulings on certain sports equipment. CBP states that it is also proposing to revoke or is revoking any treatment it has previously accorded to substantially identical transactions that are contrary to its position in these notices.
CAFC affirms CIT classification of certain binders/portfolios, denies Customs' appeal. In Avenues in Leather, Inc. v. U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the Court of International Trade's (CIT's) ruling that a "Presentation Calcu-Folio" is correctly classified under HTS 4820.10.2020 (duty-free), which covers memorandum pads, letter pads and similar articles.
CAFC rules that cables imported separately are not classifiable as unassembled pieces. In ABB, Inc. v. U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a Court of International Trade (CIT) ruling that two high voltage electric cables should be classified under HTS 8544.60.4000 (3.5%) as other electric conductors for a voltage exceeding 1,000 volts, of copper. The CAFC also affirmed the CIT's decision that a fiber optic cable should be classified under HTS 8544.70.0000 (duty-free), as an optical fiber cable.
In the October 12, 2005 issue of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Bulletin (CBP Bulletin) (Vol. 39, No. 42), CBP issued a notice revoking one classification ruling on certain soccer shinguards. CBP states that it is also revoking any treatment it has previously accorded to substantially identical transactions that are contrary to its position in this notice.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) appears to have recently posted to its Web site a memorandum which provides guidance on the classification of festive articles, in light of CBP's June 2005 proposal to limit the court decision in the case of Park B. Smith, Ltd. v. U.S (Park) to the entries litigated.
The International Trade Administration (ITA) has issued a notice amending its final affirmative antidumping (AD) duty determination for polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film, sheet, and strip from India, as there is now a final and conclusive court decision in this case.