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):
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. 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) (see 2506040076).
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 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 17 and June 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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 30 issued its mandate in an appeal related to the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China. The court issued its decision in the case concurrently with a decision on the 2018-19 review of the same order, though appellants in the 2018-19 review case recently filed a motion for reconsideration regarding alleged legal errors committed by the court during its review (see 2506250040). No such motion for reconsideration was filed in the appeal on the 2019-20 review, which concerned respondent Carbon Activated Tianjin's challenge to the Commerce Department's use of Malaysian import data under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4402.90.1000, which covers coconut-shell charcoal, as the surrogate value for coal-based carbonized material, an input of activated carbon, among other issues (see 2505090048) (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2413).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 30 issued its mandate in a customs case on the classification of 14 mixtures of frozen fruits and vegetables. In May, the appellate court upheld the Court of International Trade's classification of the mixtures under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 0811.90.80, the residual category for "other" frozen fruit (see 2505090024). The court held that the fruit ingredients give the mixtures their "essential character," making heading 0811 the proper heading for the products (Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2093).
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 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).