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 July 28 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):
An entry of gold jewelry from Oman qualifies for duty-free treatment under the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, importer Empire Jewelry argued in a July 28 complaint to the Court of International Trade. The importer noted that CBP doesn't disagree as to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading that applies to the case, subheading 7113.19.5090, but rather whether the jewelry originates in Oman under the terms of the FTA (Empire Jewelry v. United States, CIT # 24-00127).
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.
The Court of International Trade on July 29 denied importers Johanna Foods' and Johanna Beverage Company's application for a temporary restraining order against President Donald Trump's threatened 50% tariff on Brazil. Judge Timothy Reif held that the "indefiniteness of the threatened action," which Trump said will take effect on Aug. 1, "dooms" the importers' "request for emergency relief in the form of a TRO." The judge said neither Trump nor any agency "has taken final action that is subject to judicial review by this Court."
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. asked the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to transfer the latest International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariff lawsuit to the Court of International Trade and to stay briefing on the companies' challenging the tariffs' motion for summary judgment pending resolution of the transfer motion. The government said four courts have found that CIT has exclusive jurisdiction over cases challenging the legality of tariffs imposed under IEEPA, while just one has "declined to transfer the case to the CIT or dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction" (FIREDISC, Inc. v. Donald J. Trump, W.D. Tex. # 25-01134).
The Court of International Trade on July 28 denied importer Detroit Axle's motion for a preliminary injunction against President Donald Trump's decision to end the de minimis threshold on goods from China, which was made under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani said they already have granted all the relief the importer is seeking, though the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stayed that relief.
Former trade lawyer Scott Lincicome, who now leads the libertarian Cato Institute's trade division, said the administration learned the natural consequences of Section 301 tariffs when Chinese goods flow to India, Mexico and Vietnam as inputs to manufactured goods that are created in those countries.
Importer Fanuc Robotics America and the U.S. settled a customs case on the importer's robot mechanical units and robot control units. While the robot mechanical units were classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8479.5.000, dutiable at 2.5%, and the robot control units were classified under subheading 8537.10.90, dutiable at 2.7%, CBP agreed to liquidate the products under subheading 8428.90.00, free of duty; subheading 8515.21.00, free of duty; and 8515.310.00, dutiable at 1.6%. Settlement negotiations in the case proceeded over the past year specifically on two models of robot control units (see 2408260050) (Fanuc Robotics America v. U.S., CIT # 12-00052).