Size-reduction machinery should be classified as duty-free machines for "crushing, grinding, or screening" rather than as "other electromechanical" machines, dutiable at 2.5%, importer Vecoplan said in a Nov. 14 motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade (Vecoplan v. United States # 20-00126).
Harmonized Tariff Schedule
The Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) provide classification provisions and duty rates for almost every item that exists. It is a system of classifying and taxing all goods imported into the United States. The HTS is based on the international Harmonized System, which is a global standard for naming and describing trade products, and consists of a hierarchical structure that assigns a specific code and rate to each type of merchandise for duty, quota, and statistical purposes. The HTS was made effective on January 1, 1989, replacing the former Tariff Schedules of the United States. It is maintained by the U.S. International Trade Commission, but CBP is responsible for interpreting and enforcing the HTS.
The Court of International Trade properly classified knit gloves under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 6116, the U.S. argued in a Nov. 7 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The heading provides for "[g]loves, mittens and mitts, knitted or crocheted" and is "sufficiently broad" to include knit gloves. The plaintiff-appellant, Magid Glove, puts forth a host of "inconsistent and unpersuasive arguments" to vie for classification under HTS heading 3926, which provides for "[o]ther articles of plastics," the brief said (Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1793).
CBP misclassified Home Depot U.S.A.'s imports of residential door knobs packaged with at least one deadbolt, Home Depot argued in two Oct. 31 complaints at the Court of International Trade. The retail giant originally launched the cases in 2014, just now bringing the complaints to the court to vie for a change in classification for the door knobs under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, which would see the duty rates for the imports drop from 5.7% to 3.9% (Home Depot U.S.A. v. United States, CIT #14-00122, #14-00123).
The practice of providing tariff schedule subheadings for merchandise sold to customers is "customs business," and requires a customs broker license even if a disclaimer is included that the customer shouldn't rely on the classification, CBP determined in a Sept. 29 ruling, released on Oct. 22.
Importer TCW Trends and the U.S. signed a stipulation of dismissal submitted Sept. 30 to the Court of International Trade in a customs spat over men's knit tops and pants. TCW filed the case to argue that its tops and pants were made in a Qualifying Industrial Zone in Alexandria, Egypt, making the goods eligible for preferential duty-free treatment under General Note 3(a)(v) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. The entries were liquidated under HTS subheading 6103.43.15 and 6105.20.20. TCW Trends argued that CBP's finding that the merchandise didn't meet the duty-free eligibility requirements under the QIZ program was contrary to law (TCW Trends v. United States, CIT #12-00166).
CBP misclassified imports of dried botanicals that are painted, dyed or glittered, importer Second Nature Designs argued in a Sept. 26 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The botanicals were liquidated under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 0604.90.6000, dutiable at 7%, though Second Nature believes they should be classified under subheading 0604.90.3000, free of duty, the complaint said (Second Nature Designs v. United States, CIT #18-00131).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department properly included Vandewater International's steel branch outlets under the scope of the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China, the Court of International Trade held in a Sept. 8 opinion. Judge Leo Gordon found that while the plaintiffs, led by Vandewater, showed that information on the record could back a finding that their outlets could be excluded from the scope of the order, he could not agree that Commerce acted unreasonably in reaching the opposing conclusion using each of the (k)(2) factors.
The misclassification of 543 entries of metal lids was simple negligence, not a fraudulent scheme, importer Crown Cork & Seal said in its motion to dismiss parts of an amended government complaint. The motion asks the court to dismiss counts of fraud and gross negligence, leaving only the negligence count (United States v. Crown Cork & Seal, USA, CIT #21-00361).
While plaintiffs in a solar cell antidumping review case were satisfied with the Commerce Department's switch from adverse facts available and how it values silver paste on remand, they still contest the agency's positions on how to value backsheets and ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA) using surrogate data. In comments to the Court of International Trade, the plaintiffs, led by Risen Energy, argued the Commerce's bid to further defend its valuation of backsheet and EVA inputs is unsupported by substantial evidence (Risen Energy v. U.S., CIT Consol. #20-03743).