Cozy Comfort Company, which produces the Cozy, a “wearable blanket,” filed Dec. 8 in opposition of a DOJ motion for summary judgment in its classification case (Cozy Comfort Company v. U.S., CIT # 22-00173).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Court of International Trade ruled Dec. 11 that imported industrial shredders that use blades to break up material carry no duties because they are classifiable as crushing and grinding machines.
A U.S. gun sights importer again argued in the Court of International Trade on Dec. 8 that its products should be classified under the tariff schedule as “apparatuses,” not as “light fittings,” because the latter provision didn't fully cover the sights’ use of ionizing radiation (Trijicon Inc. v. United States, CIT # 22-00040).
The Court of International Trade must dismiss a customs suit from importer Sucden Americas Corp. related to its sugar imports because the company didn't protest the liquidation of its entries or the denials of its post-importation preference claims, the U.S. said Dec. 11. Because of the failure to protest, the government said, the court doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction over the suit under Section 1581(a) (Sucden Americas Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00228).
The Court of International Trade ruled Dec. 11 that large industrial shredders imported from Germany were classifiable as machines built for the purpose of “crushing and grinding,” despite CBP's arguments their use of blades for that purpose made them cutting machines instead. Granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, it directed CBP to classify the shredders, imported by U.S. company Vecoplan, under the duty-free subheading 8479.82, rather than as "other" machines of subheading 8479.89, as CBP had classified them.
Importer R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. voluntarily dismissed its customs classification suit at the Court of International Trade Dec. 7. The company contested CBP's denial of its protest claiming its mixtures for use in personal electronic vaporizing devices of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 3824.99.9280, dutiable at 5%, should be classified under subheading 8543.90.8850, free of duty. Counsel for R.J. Reynolds didn't respond to our request for comment (R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00621).
A Chinese automobile accessories exporter sought summary judgment at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 7 in its case contesting CBP's imposition of 25% Section 301 tariffs on its products (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: