The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated July 24-25 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):
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.
The Court of International Trade on July 21 upheld surrogate value picks for five inputs in an antidumping duty administrative review on activated carbon from China. The five inputs are carbonized material, coal tar, hydrochloric acid, steam and bituminous coal.
The government correctly classified counterweights for mini-excavators as "backhoe" parts, rendering them ineligible for a Section 301 tariff exclusion, CIT Judge Jane Restani ruled in a July 21 opinion.
The U.S. and importer Pacific World reached a settlement regarding the classification of artificial nails, Michael Roll, counsel for the importer, confirmed to Trade Law Daily. The settlement led to the dismissal of 15 cases at the Court of International Trade that were suspended pending resolution of a test case, also brought by Pacific World, which was resolved in 2016.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Hemp wraps for use with non-tobacco legal herbal smoking mixtures are classifiable as "other" vegetable products, CBP said in a recently released ruling. The ruling came in response to an internal advice request, originally initiated over imports of wraps by Crown Distributing. The wraps were described by the requester as lacking tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and were intended for use only with non-tobacco legal herbal smoking mixtures.
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated June 8 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):
The Court of International Trade on June 7 upheld the Commerce Department's classification of the surrogate values for aluminum ash byproduct and rolling oil inputs in the first antidumping duty administrative review on aluminum foil from China, as well as the agency's decision to use Maersk data to calculate surrogate freight costs and its refusal to grant respondent Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co. a double remedies adjustment for input subsidies the respondent said were countervailable.
CBP found an article description for aircraft parts at the 10-digit level in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule begins with "other" and correctly denied a claim for unused substitution drawback, DOJ said in a June 2 cross motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade. The case concerns the placement of the word "other" in the superior text between the 8-digit HTS subheading and the 10-digit statistical reporting number. The court's ruling could shake up the industry and could change how CBP interprets what HTS numbers are eligible or not for this type of drawback (see 2303270031) (Spirit Aerosystems v. U.S., CIT # 20-00094).
CBP illegally failed to apply exclusions for Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to eight shipments of hot wrought steel round bars even though the exclusions were granted after the shipments entered the U.S., importer Saarsteel argued in a complaint last week at the Court of International Trade. The company said it is CBP's practice to allow an importer to claim a granted exclusion via a post-summary correction or a protest when the exclusion was granted after the entry was made but "relates back to a submission date covering the entry" (Saarsteel Inc. v. United States, CIT # 21-00271).