The Court of International Trade on Oct. 8 granted importer HH Associates US' voluntary dismissal of its customs case. The importer brought the suit in September 2023 to contest CBP's classification of its glassware imports under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7013.37.2090, dutiable at 22.5%. HH Associates said the goods should receive duty-free treatment under the same subheading. Counsel for the importer didn't respond to a request for comment (HH Associates US v. United States, CIT # 23-00200).
toarticlessource documents
Search Primer
Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.
Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "surrogate value").
Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead. (e.g., CIT).
Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., CBP +ruling).
Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., ruling -NY).
Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls") or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
An airplane parts importer's products are just pieces of fabric, not airplane parts, the U.S. said Oct. 4 in support of its own cross-motion for summary judgment in a classification case (Honeywell International Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 17-00256).
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 7 sent a customs classification dispute on truck steps to a bench trial after finding that the undisputed facts are insufficient for conducting a principal use analysis on whether the products are "side protective attachments." Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves held that while a Section 301 exclusion for "side protective attachments" is a principal use provision, and not a provision for an individual product, the court can't at this time properly assess the imports at issue under a principal use framework.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The U.S. and importer Roper Corp. settled a customs spat on the company's microwave ovens, with CBP agreeing to liquidate the goods without Section 301 duties (Roper Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00217).
The EU General Court on Oct. 2 upheld the validity of the EU prohibition on the provision of legal advisory services to the Russian government and to entities established in Russia. The court said the sanction doesn't undermine the right of all persons to be advised by a lawyer for "conducting, pre-empting or anticipating judicial proceedings."
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on Oct. 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):
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 1 said court-led mediation in a suit from LE Commodities challenging 14 denied requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs resulted in a "settlement of all issues." Judge Leo Gordon led the mediation. Counsel for LE Commodities didn't respond to a request for comment on the nature of the settlement (LE Commodities v. United States, CIT # 22-00245).