The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Harmonized Tariff Schedule
The Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) provide classification provisions and duty rates for almost every item that exists. It is a system of classifying and taxing all goods imported into the United States. The HTS is based on the international Harmonized System, which is a global standard for naming and describing trade products, and consists of a hierarchical structure that assigns a specific code and rate to each type of merchandise for duty, quota, and statistical purposes. The HTS was made effective on January 1, 1989, replacing the former Tariff Schedules of the United States. It is maintained by the U.S. International Trade Commission, but CBP is responsible for interpreting and enforcing the HTS.
Products imported by Cozy Comfort are "pullovers" or "sweatshirts" not "blankets" or "other garments," DOJ said in a Nov. 3 motion for judgment in a tariff classification case at the Court of International Trade (Cozy Comfort Company v. U.S., CIT # 22-00173).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Nov. 2 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
CBP has determined that LDL Trading Company evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on cast iron soil pipe and cast iron soil pipe fittings from China, it announced in an Oct. 30 notice. CBP said that substantial evidence showed that LDL imported Chinese-origin soil pipe and fittings transshipped through Malaysia and misclassified covered merchandise as goods not subject to the AD/CVD orders.
CBP failed to apply an Office of the U.S. Trade Representative-granted Section 301 exclusion for "flexible pressure sensitive LCD display devices used as a surface for electronic wiring" to importer Kent Displays' merchandise, the importer told the Court of International Trade in an Oct. 27 motion for summary judgment. Kent argued that its Model WT16312 Dashboard is the type of device as described by the exclusion and, as such, should be free of the 25% Section 301 duties under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9013.80.7000 (Kent Displays v. United States, CIT # 20-00156).
A CBP headquarters decision on a protest is a “prior interpretive ruling or decision" that Ohio-based tent importer Under the Weather should have been able to rely on for tariff classification purposes, and as a result its classification challenge on backpacking tents shouldn't be dismissed, the importer told the Court of International Trade in a Oct. 26 brief at the Court of International Trade (Under the Weather v. U.S., CIT # 21-00211).
Imported ether glycol used in the manufacture of high-performance polyurethane elastomers is a synthetic wax and properly classified as such rather than as an epoxy resin, importer Gantrade said in its Oct. 23 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Gantrade v. U.S., CIT # 21-00551).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Oct. 16 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
CBP Withholding Communications on Past Classification Decisions, Importer Argues in Motion to Compel
The government should be ordered to produce unredacted documents for inspection by the judge and be ordered to disclose additional statements not reflecting protected deliberations in a case concerning the classification of intelligent window shade machines, Lutron Electronics said in its Oct. 13 motion to compel at the Court of International Trade. Lutron is seeking information related to former CBP employees and communications regarding decision-making in the classification process. Lutron said it fulfilled its obligation in attempting to resolve the dispute in good faith before filing its motion (Lutron Electronics v. U.S., CIT # 22-00264).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: