A selling agent working as intermediary between European wineries and U.S. wine wholesalers has enough of a financial interest to be the importer of record, CBP said in a June 30 ruling. Quality Brand Imports requested a ruling from CBP on whether it is able to serve as the IOR even though it never acts as a buyer or takes ownership of the goods, acting only as a facilitator.in the import and sales process.
Two importers of steel grating from China didn't declare the goods as subject to antidumping and countervailing duty orders as required, CBP said in a recently posted notice of determination. CBP made the determination following an allegation from Hog Slat that prompted an investigation into Ikadan System USA and Weihai Gaosai Metal Product under the Enforce and Protect Act. The investigation involved entries of "galvanized steel Tri-Bar Floor product (tribar floors), composed of rolled steel rods welded to another steel cross rod (i.e., a product of two or more pieces of steel joined together by assembly)," CBP said.
In the June 30 Customs Bulletin (Vol. 55, No. 25), CBP published a proposal to modify rulings on plastic leg coverings.
CBP released its July 7 Customs Bulletin (Vol. 55, No. 26), which includes the following ruling actions:
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated July 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):
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP “NY” rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
In the June 30 Customs Bulletin (Vol. 55, No. 25), CBP published a proposal to modify rulings on textile leg coverings.
Many cases challenging findings of antidumping or countervailing duty evasion under the Enforce and Protect Act include claims that the process has violated an importer's constitutional rights, particularly under the Fifth Amendment. Case after case in the Court of International Trade argues elements of the EAPA process -- from the lack of notice provided to an importer that it's under investigation to the insufficient public summaries of proprietary information in the investigation -- violate importers' due process rights under the U.S. Constitution. However, the circumstances under which these claims may actually be heard by CIT may have yet to come, trade lawyers said.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP “NY” rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York: