US Seeks Nearly $180K From Fabric Roll Importer for Skirting Antidumping Duties
The U.S. opened a customs penalty suit against New York-based importer Courtside Market last week, accusing the company of negligently skirting duties on its inkjet fabric rolls (United States v. Courtside Market, CIT # 24-00233).
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.
Courtside Market imported two entries of 100% woven polyester inkjet fabric rolls between December 2017 and April 2018. The government said that at the time of entry, the goods were subject to antidumping duties, which covered artist canvas from China.
The AD order said artist canvases subject to the order are classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 5901.90.2000 and 5901.90.40.00. Excluded from the order are products such as tracing cloths, "paint-by-number" canvases and certain stretcher strips.
The complaint said that none of the exceptions applies to Courtside Market's goods. Instead, the importer entered goods classified under subheading 5903.90.1000, which only applies to goods made of cotton. The goods should have been classified under subheading 5903.90.2500, since the fabric was "100 percent woven polyester fabric coated with acrylic," the complaint said.
As a result, Courtside Market failed to pay AD and correctly classify its merchandise, the U.S. alleged. CBP said in 2019 that the company needed to pay nearly $90,000 in unpaid AD on the two entries.
After the importer failed to pay up, CBP issued a pre-penalty notice seeking $424,235.57 covering a total of 10 entries, though the U.S. said eight of the entries "are not at issue in this complaint." Instead of paying the penalty, Courtside Market offered to make an initial $1,000 payment and 47 subsequent $1,000 payments.
The U.S. countered by bringing suit, claiming negligence on behalf of Courtside Market and seeking $179,489.46. The government said this figure "represents two times the lawful duties, taxes, and fees of which the United States was deprived."