Newly Released CBP HQ Rulings April 30
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated April 30 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):
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.
H328390: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 4601-22-131262; men’s and women’s reusable incontinence briefs; handicapped articles of subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS
| Ruling: The four styles of reusable incontinence briefs are ineligible for duty-free treatment under subheading 9817.00.96. Therefore, the protest should be denied. |
| Issue: Whether the reusable incontinence briefs are eligible for duty-free treatment under subheading 9817.00.96. |
| Item: Four styles of men’s and women’s reusable incontinence briefs. Two ladies' briefs and two men's briefs, all of which come in packs of three. The products are marketed, designed, and sold as being highly absorbent and specifically designed for moderate to heavy incontinence protection. |
| Reason: The subject garments are not “specially designed” for the use or benefit of persons with chronic severe, chronic incontinence to an extent greater than for the general public. |
| Ruling Date: Jan. 25, 2024 |
H322865: Request for Internal Advice Filed on Behalf of Enel Green Power North America Inc. and EGP Stillwater Solar PV II LLC
| Ruling: CBP didn't properly rate advance antidumping and countervailing duties on the eight entries at issue because the solar cells were outside the scope of Commerce’s C-570-980 and A-570-979 Orders. The entries should be liquidated without AD or CVD. |
| Issue: Whether CBP correctly assessed AD and CVD on Enel’s eight entries under the terms of Commerce’s C-570-980 and A-570-979 Orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. |
| Item: Between March 21 and Nov. 13, 2020, Enel entered eight entries, including seven entries of CSPV cell modules and one entry of thin film photovoltaic modules. On all the entry summaries, Enel declared the country of origin of the solar cells as Italy. Enel asserts that the solar cells in the identified eight entries were clearly outside the scope of Commerce’s orders for Case Nos. A-570-979 and C-570-980 and therefore not subject to ADs and CVDs. |
| Reason: Even if Commerce were to determine that Enel’s thin film modules constituted CSPV cells, they would not fall under Commerce’s C-570-980 and A-570-979 orders because their p/i/n junctions (consisting of a positive, intrinsic and negative layer) were manufactured in Italy. |
| Ruling Date: March 1, 2024 |
H328752: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 4909-21-100585; Section 201 Duties; Section 301 Duties; Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Solar Modules
| Ruling: The solar panels at issue are not subject to the (1) Section 201 safeguard measure, the Section 301 duties, (2) the antidumping duty, or the countervailing duty. Accordingly, the protest should be granted in full. |
| Issue: (1) Whether the solar panels at issue are subject to the Section 201 safeguard measure or the Section 301 duties. (2) Whether the solar panels at issue are subject to AD and CVD. |
| Item: Solar panels shipped from Enalex Energy (KH) Co., Ltd., located in Cambodia, and that Astronergy entered as the importer of record. Astronergy claims the solar panels are of Cambodian origin but were wrongly liquidated as Chinese origin products and, on this basis, assessed Section 201 duties, Section 301 duties, antidumping duties and countervailing duties. |
| Reason: The wafers sourced from China do not have a p/n (positive and negative) junction present, and as such cannot be classified as solar cells under the plain language of the scope of the Orders. Thus, as the solar cells and the solar panels at issue are from Cambodia (the information provided by the protest filer suggests that other than the wafers, which are from China, the remaining components and manufacturing and assembly operations are all from, or take place in, Cambodia), and not the particular country, i.e., China, covered by the orders, we find that the orders do not apply. |
| Ruling Date: March 1, 2024 |