The Court of International Trade ruled that a shipment of 443 bales of secondhand clothing imported by DIS Vintage should be classified as "commingled goods" and subject to the "highest rate of duty for any part thereof," siding with the government in a May 17 opinion. Judge Timothy Reif, after examining samples of the goods, determined that some were not classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6309 as "worn clothing and other worn articles" since they had no visible signs of appreciable wear. Instead, some were classified as cotton trousers of subheading 6203.42.40, dutiable at 16.6%, which as the highest rate of duty for the 443 bales applies to the entire shipment of commingled goods under General Note 3(f)(i).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated May 12 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):
Alvarez & Marsal Taxand hired Michael McGee to lead the consultancy's new Global Trade and Customs practice, it said in a May 12 news release. McGee was previously the global director of International Trade Regulations at BP America. “The political landscape and the pandemic have led to more regulations, increasingly complex tax regimes and the need to redraw supply chains. As a result, there is greater demand for expert tax advisory services, including for global trade and tariffs and duties,” said Ernesto Perez, managing director of the Houston firm. “In line with A&M’s leadership, action, results approach, A&M Taxand is responding to the shifting business environment by expanding and strengthening specialized tax services to maximize value for clients.” A&M said McGee has “expert knowledge of U.S. Customs Law, Department of Commerce Export Administration Regulations, Department of Treasury Office of Foreign Asset Control, and Department of Commerce Antiboycott Regulations.”
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated May 12 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):
A group of importers involved in the litigation over the Section 301 tariffs sent a letter on May 7 to the White House urging a settlement in the case to "alleviate the economic and social harms these tariffs have caused to U.S. companies, U.S. workers and the overall U.S. economy." Led by the importers selected to serve as the test case for the litigation, HMTX Industries and Jasco Products Company, the companies told the White House they are seeking an end to the tariffs and a full refund of the "unlawfully" collected lists 3 and 4A duties collected from the companies. The case is currently making its way through the Court of International Trade.
Flooring importer FD Sales Company, LLC launched a challenge in the Court of International Trade claiming that CBP improperly denied some of its imports exclusions from Section 301 tariffs (FD Sales Company v. U.S., CIT # 21-00244). In a May 7 complaint, FD Sales said it brought in 49 entries of vinyl flooring, engineered wood flooring, “Aquaguard” wood flooring, tile saws and tile nippers on which it was granted exclusions from the Section 301 tariffs. The importer sought a refund of $671,442.81 in duties paid on the goods, of which $238,025.44 was granted by CBP. FD Sales claims that its imports were properly excluded from the additional duties “pursuant to exclusions to Section 301 granted by the Office of the United States Trade Representative.”
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:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A Department of Justice defense of President Donald Trump's decision to eliminate a tariff exemption for bifacial solar panels would upend “well-settled principles of judicial review,” counsel for Solar Energy Industries Association argued in a May 7 response to DOJ's motion to dismiss. The DOJ argued that the Court of International Trade isn't permitted to review a president's factual determinations when determining if the tariff actions followed statute. Seeing as the president is only explicitly allowed to adjust previous safeguard measures to a product “after a majority of the representatives of the domestic industry submits to the President a petition requesting such reduction, modification, or termination on such basis, that the domestic industry has made a positive adjustment to import competition,” the questions of whether that petition was submitted and if domestic industry has indeed made the requisite adjustments have become central ones to the case.