Nike shoes that include Bluetooth connectivity, data processing, flash memory and auto-fit technology are classifiable as shoes, CBP said in an April 30 ruling. The company had argued the shoes should be classified based upon the Bluetooth transceiver, similar to smartwatches that rely on Bluetooth to transmit data, under subheading 8517.62. "Wearable 'smart' technology is a growing segment of the marketplace," CBP said. "Without a doubt, these types of goods will require individual, or case-by-case, analyses in order to determine their essential character." Jeffrey Whalen, a lawyer for Nike, requested the tariff classification ruling from CBP.
The following lawsuits were 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:
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 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:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
An importer’s tariff classification challenge on machinery used in the recycling industry has been designated a test case, according to an order issued by the Court of International Trade April 28 (Vecoplan, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 20-00126). Filed by Vecoplan, the lawsuit challenges CBP’s classification of industrial size-reduction machinery, said the underlying consent motion to designate it as such. CBP had classified the merchandise under subheading 8479.89.9499 (other machine having an individual function, dutiable at 2.5%), while Vecoplan argues for classification under subheading 8479.82.0080 (crushing, grinding, screening, sifting, etc. machines, duty-free). Two other cases filed by Vecoplan seek the same result, and the importer has moved to suspend them under the new test case.
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated April 27 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 scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders cannot be expanded to include goods that were not part of the International Trade Commission's original injury determination, Thai steel exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company argued in an April 27 reply brief to the Court of International Trade. Citing, among other things, the fact that the ITC's final injury determination did not cover tariff subheadings for dual-stenciled pipe, Saha seeks to overturn the Commerce Department's final scope ruling that dual-stenciled pipe is subject to antidumping duties on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company Limited v. U.S., CIT #20-00133). Saha says the trade court is bound by the precedent of a 1998 Federal Circuit decision involving Wheatland Tube.