Recent CIT Decisions on EUPs, Refunds of Duties, Etc
CIT rules CBP's decision not to delay ruling's effective date is appropriate. In Weslo, Inc. v. U.S., the Court of International Trade (CIT) found that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) acted appropriately in its refusal to delay the effective date of HQ 089891, which classified certain electronic speedometer/tachometers imported to be incorporated into stationary exercise equipment under HTS 9506.91.00 (4.64% duty rate). Prior to this ruling, the merchandise had been classified, variously, under TSUS 711.98 (duty free), under HTS 9506.91.00, and under HTS 9029.20.40 (duty free), the last of which CBP indicated was a misclassification.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
With respect to Weslo's claim that CBP had an established and uniform practice (EUP) of classifying the imported merchandise under a duty-free TSUS provision and the corresponding duty-free HTS provision, the CIT found that any EUP was terminated well before Weslo imported the merchandise at issue in this case. Because the increase in duty rates resulted directly from the enactment of HTSUS to replace the TSUS, Weslo is unable to rely on the notice, timing and publication provisions for EUPs of 19 USC 1315(d) or 19 CFR 177.10. (Slip Op. 05-5, dated 01/24/05, available at http://www.cit.uscourts.gov/slip_op/Slip_op05/05-5.pdf)
CIT refuses to relieve CBP of its agreement to refund duties and interest. In Church & Dwight Co., Inc. v. U.S., the CIT denied CBP's request that it be relieved of its agreement to refund duties of $101,436.68 plus any interest to Church & Dwight. CIT explains that CBP and Church & Dwight negotiated a settlement in which it was agreed that palm fatty acids distillate imported by Church & Dwight were properly classified under HTS 3823.19.20 (2.3% duty), rather than CBP's classification of 3824.90.40 (4.6% duty).
CIT explains that the agreement unambiguously states that the subject merchandise is to be reliquidated at 2.3% duty rate (CBP contended that it intended the language of the agreement to state that the merchandise would be liquidated "at the rate in effect" at the time of entry.) (Slip Op. 05-20, dated 02/08/05, available at http://www.cit.uscourts.gov/slip_op/Slip_op05/05-20.pdf)
CIT rejects CBP's motion for reconsideration with respect to the meaning of "tileboard."In Witex, U.S.A., Inc. et al., v. U.S., the CIT denied CBP's motion for reconsideration of its argument with respect to the meaning of "tileboard." The CIT concluded trial testimony is required for this matter and instructed CBP and the plaintiff to jointly prepare an order governing preparation for trial. (Slip Op. 05-18, dated 02/07/05, available at http://www.cit.uscourts.gov/slip_op/Slip_op05/05-18.pdf)