The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Importer American Eel Depot filed a pair of complaints at the Court of International Trade on June 27 to contest CBP's classification of its frozen roasted eel under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 1604.17.10 and secondary subheading 9903.88.03, subjecting the goods to Section 301 duties. The company argued that its goods aren't products of China but, in fact, have a country of origin of the U.S. (American Eel Depot v. United States, CIT # 21-00278, -00279).
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 filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Cozy Comfort will appeal the Court of International Trade's recent ruling finding that The Comfy, a "wearable, oversized item covering the front and back with a hood, sleeves, ribbed cuffs, and a marsupial pocket," is a pullover and not a blanket (see 2506170063). After conducting a five-day bench trial in the case, CIT Judge Stephen Vaden held that, as a matter of fact, The Comfy doesn't protect against "extreme cold," and that, as a matter of law, the item fits under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 6110, which provides for "pullovers." The judge specifically said the item fits under subheading 6110.30.30, dutiable at 32%. The importer now will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Cozy Comfort v. United States, CIT # 22-00173).
The U.S. again said June 23 that an importer’s mastectomy brassieres should be classified as brassieres, not medical accessories (Amoena USA Corp. v. U.S., CIT #20-00100).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Respondent Carbon Activated Tianjin asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 23 to rehear its antidumping duty case, arguing that a three-judge panel committed "legal error" by affirming the Commerce Department's selection of the surrogate value for carbonized material. Carbon Activated said the panel also erred in "misapprehending key distinctions between the administrative record" of the 2018-19 AD review on Chinese activated carbon and the records of prior reviews (Carbon Activated Tianjin v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2135).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated 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):