After the Court of International Trade ruled that a Section 301 exclusion for side protective attachments for trucks is a principal use provision, not an eo nomine one (see 2410070030), a vehicle accessories importer asked CIT Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves on Nov. 6 to either reconsider or let it bring an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Keystone Automotive Operations v. U.S., CIT # 21-00215).
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 following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
In the Oct. 30 Customs Bulletin (Vol. 58, No. 43), CBP published proposals to revoke ruling letters concerning women's pants and infrared video goggles from China.
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 1 dismissed importer Travelway Group International's customs suit for lack of prosecution. The company put its action on the customs case management calendar but failed to remove it or request an extension before time expired. Travelway brought the suit to argue that its backpacks and bags of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 4202.92.3120 and 4202.92.3131 qualify for Section 301 exclusions. Counsel for the importer didn't respond to a request for comment (Travelway Group International v. United States, CIT # 22-00312).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The U.S. agreed to pay importer Dis Vintage $34,591.27 in duty refunds and interest payments in a tariff classification spat on worn clothing. The parties filed a stipulated judgment with the Court of International Trade on Nov. 1, agreeing to classify the goods under the following five subheadings: 6104.63.20, dutiable at 28.2%; 6309.00.00, free of duty; 6203.20.20, dutiable at 19.7%; 6203.43.40, dutiable at 27.9%; and 6110.30.30, dutiable at 32% (Dis Vintage v. United States, CIT # 23-00033).
Watches that have case backs set with watch glass made of nonprecious materials -- such as synthetic sapphire -- are not considered to have cases made "wholly" of precious metal and are classified differently than watches that do, the Court of International Trade ruled Nov. 1. The holding came as a watch importer’s motion for judgment in a 2018 case wound up being denied, and the government’s was granted, by CIT Judge Jane Restani.