The Court of International Trade issued a May 17 opinion addressing two cases brought by Voestalpine USA and Bilstein Cold Rolled Steel, the importer and purchaser of entries subject to Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, respectively. The cases both concern reliquidation requests on various steel entries without the Section 232 duties, based on the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security's approval of exclusion requests. The exclusions each originally contained an invalid Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading, but by the time the error was discovered in both cases, CBP had liquidated the entries with the duties.
Imported house wrap, used during construction to protect the properties from water infiltration, should be properly classified as “Woven fabrics of synthetic filament yarn...” under the duty-free heading 5407 rather than as "Textile fabrics impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics" under heading 5903, CBP said in a March 8 ruling.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade assigned two customs actions brought by Beverly Hills watchmaker Ildico to Judge Jane Restani, the court said in two May 12 orders. Ildico filed the case to argue that its imported wristwatches within gold bezels and cases and with synthetic sapphires on front and back should be classifiable as wrist watches with precious metal cases of heading 9101, rather than as CBP liquidated them under subheading 9102 as other wrist watches (see 2204290030) (Ildico Inc. v. U.S., #18-00076, -00136).
Net wraps used to bind agricultural products in round bales can't be classified as agricultural machinery, and are more akin to thread in a sewing machine or paper in a printer, DOJ said in a brief filed May 10 at the Court of International Trade. The motion for summary judgment asks CIT Judge Mark Barnett to rule against a motion for summary judgement filed by importer RKW Klerks (see 2203150049), and find the net wraps are knit fabrics rather than agricultural machine parts (RKW Klerks Inc. v. United States, CIT #20-00001).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated May 9 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):
Toasted onion products from China are properly classified under heading 2005 as prepared or preserved onions instead of under heading 0712 as dried onions due to additional processing beyond simple drying, CBP recently ruled.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Court of International in a May 2 order granted importer DSM Nutritional Products' consent motion to set up a test case in its customs spat over how to classify beta-carotene products. The motion places six other cases under one action -- five of which were brought by DSM and the other by American International Chemical. All the cases concern the tariff classification of beta-carotene products that CBP placed under HTS subheading 2106.90.99, which provides for "food preparations not elsewhere specific or included," dutiable at 6.4%. The importers argue for the products to be classified under subheading 2936.90.01, which provides for "provitamins," free of duty (DSM Nutritional Products v. United States, CIT #17-00136).