Ghacham, a Paramount, California-based clothing wholesale company, agreed to plead guilty to criminally undervaluing imported garments in a scheme to skirt nearly $6.4 million in customs duties, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California announced Sept. 20. The scheme was also meant to hide the company's business with a woman in Mexico who has ties to the Sinaloa drug cartel, the U.S. Attorney's Office said.
Customs duty
A customs duty is a tariff or tax which a country imposes on goods when they are transported across international borders. Customs Duties are used to protect countries' economies, residents, jobs, and environments, by limiting the flow of imported merchandise, especially restricted and prohibited goods, into the country. The Customs duty rate is a percentage determined by the value of the article purchased in the foreign country and not based on quality, size, or weight. U.S. customs duties are listed in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative issued a technical correction to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule to reflect the eligibility of Curacao for duty-free import provisions for certain apparel and textile luggage. The agency’s notice adds Curacao to the list of countries in Note 7(b) to subchapter II of Chapter 98 of the HTS, effective Sept. 22. The country had not been added to the note even though it was declared eligible in 2015.
The Court of International Trade in its April 1 remand order gave the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative “one final opportunity” to cure its Administrative Procedure Act violations and "flesh out" the reasons why it rejected the 9,000+ comments it received in the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariff rulemakings, without devising “new rationales for dismissing them,” Akin Gump lawyers for lead Section 301 plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products said in comments on USTR’s Aug. 1 remand determination. “USTR’s response to that directive flunks the Court’s test,” they said (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052).
The Court of International Trade “bent over backwards” to allow the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to comply with its Administrative Procedure Act obligations in its imposition of the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods when it remanded the duties to the agency for further explanation on the rationale for the actions it took in the context of the comments it received, said an amicus brief filed Sept. 14 in the massive Section 301 litigation from the Retail Litigation Center, CTA, the National Retail Federation and four other trade associations. With USTR’s “non-responsive” answer to the remand order, the time has come for the court “to impose the normal remedy for unlawful agency action” and to vacate the lists 3 and 4A tariffs, it said (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052).
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The lists 1 and 2 Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports didn’t terminate on the fourth anniversaries of their imposition dates, July 6 and Aug. 23, after the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative received “numerous requests” from “domestic industries” to keep the duties intact, according to an agency notice late Sept. 2.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Sept. 6 opinion said that the Court of International Trade was right to dismiss a suit from two importers seeking to retroactively apply Section 301 tariff exclusions, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction since a protest with CBP was not filed. The trade court held that it did not have jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, since the court would have had jurisdiction under Section 1581(a) had the importers, ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings, filed protests with CBP. The Federal Circuit agreed, holding that the true nature of the suit contests CBP's assessment of the duties and not the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's exclusions, necessitating a protest.
A company formerly operating a bonded warehouse facility owes the government additional duties on 2,188 pairs of shoes that remained unaccounted for when the facility was shut down, ruled CBP headquarters in ruling H289595, released Aug. 26. CBP said the shoes, along with many other items, were improperly classified and stored by Jay Group in its facility before being withdrawn during the warehouse's closure. CBP ruled that Jay Group failed to rebut the presumption of correctness of its classification of shoes that remained unaccounted for in Jay Group’s final withdrawal, and instead accused CBP of factual errors.
Some companies said in recently submitted comments they used to benefit from Section 232 tariffs but no longer do. Others said they previously were able to mitigate the cost impact of Section 301 tariffs through exclusions, finding other suppliers or other trade benefits but can't anymore.