Importer Nutricia North America told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 18 that the government's claims in a customs suit on the company's medical foods present "several fundamental flaws." Nutricia argued that, despite the government's claim that the products are barred from Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 3004 due to Note 1(a) to chapter 30, the medical foods "easily fall within the terms of heading 3004 as 'medicaments ... for therapeutic uses'" (Nutricia North America v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1436).
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 on Sept. 5 said a CBP headquarters ruling on see-through pop-up tent "pods" that differed in outcome from a previously decided protest didn't require public notice-and-comment because the protest wasn't a "prior interpretive ruling or decision." Judge Timothy Reif dismissed one of importer Under the Weather's counts in its customs classification case on the pods, finding that the prior protest approval wasn't the result of "considered deliberations," didn't have "prospective effect" and wasn't "interpretive."
Digital security cameras mounted as doorbells fall under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading governing TV cameras and video camera recorders, according to three separate CBP rulings issued June 21 and publicly released last week.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer King Maker Marketing told the Court of International Trade on Aug. 2 that the date of importation of its paper-wrapped cigarettes was the date on which the goods were withdrawn from a foreign-trade zone and not the date on which they entered the FTZ. As such, the company said in a complaint that its duty drawback claims weren't untimely, since they were filed within five years of the dates on which the goods were withdrawn from the FTZ (King Maker Marketing v. United States, CIT # 24-00134).
Importers Yellow Bird and Vantage Point filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade July 18 arguing that a 1955 Jaguar race car, driven in competitions by multiple Australian racing drivers, is a collector's item, not a used motor vehicle (Yellowbird Enterprises v. U.S., CIT # 24-00121).
The government told the Court of International Trade that importer Precision Components' low-carbon steel blanks fall within the scope of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China. Filing a reply brief on July 12, the U.S. said Precision conceded that its blanks described in the 2023 scope ruling request are plainly covered by a 2020 ruling similarly finding the blanks to fall under the scope of the order (Precision Components v. United States, CIT # 23-00218).
Importer Nutricia North America filed an amended opening brief in a customs case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on its substances used to "treat life-treatening diseases in young children," after government attorneys asked for the revisions. The brief was amended in two spots (Nutricia North America v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1436).
Importer Target General Merchandise moved for summary judgment in a customs case on its LED lamps, breaking down its case into two tracks -- one regarding its goods imported in 2014 and the other on its imports entered in 2018 (Target General Merchandise v. United States, CIT # 15-00069).
U.S. importer Water Pik will avoid Section 301 duties on its electromechanical oral hygiene devices from China after arguing that CBP should have classified them under a different Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading (Water Pik v. United States, CIT # 23-00083).