Parties in a customs case on the classification of human interface controllers will tell the Court of International Trade by May 20 if they will proceed with the case under "summary judgment motions or request for a trial," Judge Timothy Stanceu said in an April 16 order, noting that a status conference won't be held April 19 as originally planned. Importer Robert Bosch brought suit in 2020 to contest CBP's classification of the controllers under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8473.70.9900, dutiable at 2.6% (see 2303090055) (Robert Bosch v. U.S., CIT # 20-00028).
A trailer wheel exporter April 15 defended its motion to intervene as plaintiff-intervenor against a domestic producer’s opposition, saying that it's expressly considered an “interested party” under the Enforce and Protect Act (Dexter Distribution Group LLC v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 24-00019).
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 April 15 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 Russian pipe exporter contested the International Trade Commission's redetermination upon remand that Russian pipe imports into the U.S. were injuring domestic industry (see 2402120048). It said the ITC didn’t make any changes to its analysis in the redetermination, contrary to an order by the Court of International Trade (PAO TMK v. U.S., CIT # 21-00532).
In a third amended scheduling order, the Court of International Trade set a new Aug. 13 deadline for motions in a case that has been ongoing since 2022. The extension follows an amended complaint filed April 1 in which plaintiff Zoetis Services said that CBP had classified a “nearly identical” product to its own under a Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading it preferred (Zoetis Services LLC v. U.S., CIT #22-00056).
The U.S. and steel importer AM/NS Calvert announced in a joint report April 12 that they are still in the process of seeking settlement in a case regarding the Commerce Department’s denial of the importer’s Section 232 tariff exclusion requests (AM/NS Calvert v. U.S., CIT # 21-00005).
Parkdale and the government filed a joint motion April 11 requesting more time to consider whether the company could file its case challenging CBP’s denial of its mixed-use drawback claims before repaying the accelerated drawback it received (see 2205180046). The motion says Parkdale recently sent CBP a letter with the company’s position on “whether the re-payment of accelerated drawback constitutes a liquidated duty under 28 U.S.C. § 2637, and therefore required to be paid to the government before this action was commenced,” as planned in a previous extension motion in December (Parkdale America v. U.S., CIT # 22-00019).
The trade court asked both parties in a case for supplemental briefing addressing whether note 3 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule’s section XVI should be applied to a supermodule that goes into power plants. The U.S. claims that the product should be analyzed under note 2, which it said was mutually exclusive with note 3; the importer, HyAxiom, advocates for interpretation under note 3 (HyAxiom v. U.S., CIT # 21-00057).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York: