Importer Hellbender filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on June 6 arguing that its electronic components are of Taiwanese origin, not Chinese origin, and are thus exempt from Section 301 duties (Hellbender v. United States, CIT # 24-00104).
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").
In a decision made public June 6, the Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department’s 2019-20 antidumping review of Chinese solar cells so the department could rework its valuation of an input, solar glass, and its adverse facts available calculation.
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 between June 2 and June 4 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 U.S. sought reconsideration of the Court of International Trade’s May 2 ruling that importer BASF Corp.'s fish oil ethyl ester concentrates are “extracts of fish” under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 1603, not “food preparations” under heading 2106 (see 2505020018). It said the court “overlooked” Explanatory Note 16.03 for heading 1603 to create an impracticably broad definition of "fish extracts" (BASF Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 13-00318).
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 May 20-23 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 following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade granted importer APS Auto Parts Specialist's voluntary dismissals of its two cases seeking Section 301 exclusions. APS challenged CBP's denial of its protest, claiming that its steel side protective attachment auto parts of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8708.29.5060 qualify for Section 301 tariff exclusions under secondary subheading 9903.88.45. The importer dismissed the cases on May 28 (see 2505280045) (APS Auto Parts Specialist v. United States, CIT #s 21-00233, 21-00268).