The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on June 26 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):
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").
After the Commerce Department chose on remand to again directly value antidumping duty review mandatory respondent Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies’ energy costs in an AD administrative review, the exporter said June 20 in response that the department just “recycled” its initial results (Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00068).
Importer BASF Corp. pushed back July 2 against a U.S. attempt to seek reconsideration of Court of International Trade Judge Gary Katzmann’s decision that BASF’s fish oil should be classified as fish extracts, not as food preparations (see 2506040076 and 2505020018) (BASF Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 13-00318).
The Court of International Trade in a decision made public July 2 sustained the Commerce Department's decision on remand to find that antidumping duty respondent Louis Dreyfus Company Sucos and an unnamed supplier, referred to as "Supplier A," are neither affiliates nor partners. Judge Claire Kelly said the parties aren't affiliates, since neither party is reliant on the other nor controls the other, nor are they partners, since the companies aren't involved in a "cooperative business endeavor in which they share risk and reward."
Importer Cyber Power System's accessory cables are general "power cables," not "telecommunications cables," the U.S. said in a cross-motion for judgment June 27 (Cyber Power Systems (USA) v. U.S., CIT # 21-00200).
The Commerce Department on June 30 reversed its finding that the Moroccan government's tax fine and penalty reduction program is de facto specific, slightly lowering respondent OCP's countervailing duty rate. Commerce said in light of the Court of International Trade's decision rejecting its de facto specificity analysis, it's finding, under respectful protest, that the program isn't de facto specific (The Mosaic Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00246).
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California erred in finding that the Court of International Trade has exclusive jurisdiction to hear the State of California's lawsuit against the legality of the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, California argued in its opening brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Among other things, California argued that its suit "arises out of" IEEPA, the substantive law "giving rise to the claims," and not President Donald Trump's executive orders implementing the tariffs, as the district court held (State of California v. Donald J. Trump, 9th Cir. # 25-3493).
A knit underwear importer’s products weren’t correctly classified under the secondary Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9817 for clothing “specially designed” for “physically or mentally handicapped persons,” the U.S. said June 27, which would have exempted them from a 15% antidumping duty on their products (Viecura v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00154).
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).
A Thai wheel exporter and three importers filed their opening bid at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit challenge a trade court ruling that their products, wheels made with some Chinese-origin components, originated from China rather than Thailand (Asia Wheel Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1689).