Importer American Eel Depot filed a pair of complaints at the Court of International Trade on June 27 to contest CBP's classification of its frozen roasted eel under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 1604.17.10 and secondary subheading 9903.88.03, subjecting the goods to Section 301 duties. The company argued that its goods aren't products of China but, in fact, have a country of origin of the U.S. (American Eel Depot v. United States, CIT # 21-00278, -00279).
The Supreme Court's recent decision to eliminate nationwide injunctions won't impact the Court of International Trade, attorneys told us. The trade court is a court of national jurisdiction and will keep the right to issue nationwide injunctions for issues within its jurisdiction, the attorneys said.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Importer Cozy Comfort will appeal the Court of International Trade's recent ruling finding that The Comfy, a "wearable, oversized item covering the front and back with a hood, sleeves, ribbed cuffs, and a marsupial pocket," is a pullover and not a blanket (see 2506170063). After conducting a five-day bench trial in the case, CIT Judge Stephen Vaden held that, as a matter of fact, The Comfy doesn't protect against "extreme cold," and that, as a matter of law, the item fits under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 6110, which provides for "pullovers." The judge specifically said the item fits under subheading 6110.30.30, dutiable at 32%. The importer now will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Cozy Comfort v. United States, CIT # 22-00173).
Importer Crutchfield filed an amicus brief on June 26 in the appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the legality of the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Crutchfield argued that President Donald Trump's claim that IEEPA grants the president "unilateral and unreviewable authority to impose, increase, decrease, suspend, or alter tariffs on virtually every country in the world" can't be squared with the statute's plain language and the U.S. Constitution (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
The U.S. again said June 23 that an importer’s mastectomy brassieres should be classified as brassieres, not medical accessories (Amoena USA Corp. v. U.S., CIT #20-00100).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
An importer can't use the transaction value of the first sale for appraisement purposes, CBP recently determined in a May 6 ruling, finding that the middleman paid the manufacturer late yet didn't pay any interest as required by the contract, indicating that the transaction wasn't at arm's length.
Importers, led by Simplified, asked the Court of International Trade on June 24 to reconsider its decision to stay the company's suit against the tariffs imposed on China under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Simplified said the stay order prevents it from raising its argument that the IEEPA suit actually belongs in a U.S. district court, and not CIT, while the government hasn't shown the "hardship necessary to justify a stay," the brief said (Emily Ley Paper, d/b/a Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00096).
The U.S. filed its opening brief on June 24 in its appeal of the Court of International Trade ruling vacating the executive orders implementing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, arguing that CIT got it wrong "at every turn." The government told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the trade court "properly did not question whether IEEPA authorizes as a general matter," though the court improperly suggested that "giving effect to IEEPA’s text would create constitutional concerns, invoking the nondelegation doctrine" (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).