Worn clothing commingled with other apparel bound for recycling should be eligible for duty-free treatment, importer Dis Vintage argued in a May 1 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The merchandise at issue is worn clothing imported to be recycled or for continued use as clothing. Dis Vintage asked the court to find the worn clothing was properly classified under the duty-free Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6309.00.100 and to refund all duties plus interest (Dis Vintage v. U.S., CIT # 23-00033).
Heat-treated forged steel rods imported by ME Global are properly classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule as "other bars" not further worked than forged, rather than in the importer's preferred classification as "grinding balls and similar articles for mills," the Court of International Trade ruled in a May 2 decision.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld CBP's decision not to grant credit to customs broker license exam test taker Byungmin Chae of Elkhorn, Nebraska, for two questions on the April 2018 exam. Judges Pauline Newman, Sharon Prost and Todd Hughes granted Chae credit for one of three questions he challenged, but that was insufficient to bring him up to the 75% threshold needed to pass the test.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Pants designed to assist with incontinence should be classified under the duty-free Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9817.00.96 as "Articles specially designed or adapted for the use of and benefit of the blind and other physically or mentally handicapped persons," Viecura said in an April 13 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Viecura v. U.S., CIT # 21-00154).
Net wraps used for bailing hay are properly classified as warp knit fabric under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6005.39.00, the DOJ argued in an April 10 opening brief filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. RKW Klerks appealed the Court of International Trade's Oct. 4 decision that held that the net wraps are warp knit fabric rather than RKW's preferred classification as "parts of agricultural machines" under HTS subheading 8433.90.50 (see 2210050032) (RKW Klerks v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1210).
The Court of International Trade on March 29 dismissed a lawsuit from cell phone case maker Otter Products seeking interest on customs duty overpayments, finding it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. Judge Claire Kelly held that the Administrative Procedure Act waiver of sovereign immunity only applies to interest on deposits linked with liquidated entries. As a result, there is no specific waiver of immunity related to Otter's claim for interest for its overpayments on tendered prior disclosures "under the no-interest rule," Kelly said.
CBP’s interpretation of the drawback statute and programming of its ACE Drawback Module led to an "absurd" rejection of substitution unused merchandise drawback eligibility for an importer of civil aviation equipment that disregards the basic structure of the tariff schedule, Spirit Aerosystems said in a March 24 motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade (Spirit Aerosystems v. U.S., CIT # 20-00094).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated March 21 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 Office of the U.S. Trade Representative complied with Administrative Procedure Act requirements when it set lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China, the Court of International Trade held in a much-anticipated opinion on March 17. After USTR provided more explanation of its tariff decisions on remand, judges Mark Barnett, Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves held that the explanations were not made impermissibly post hoc and cleared APA requirements.