The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Sprinkler importer Melnor brought a complaint against the government Feb. 28 contesting CBP’s revocation of a long-standing practice of classifying its sprinklers under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9817 (Melnor, Inc. v. United States, CIT # 25-00052).
The United States sought Feb. 28 a rehearing of the Court of International Trade’s decision regarding the classification of precut chordal, radial and web fabric pieces used in airplane brakes. The products’ importer, Honeywell, would avoid duties if the ruling stands (Honeywell International Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 17-00256).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on Feb. 26 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):
Importer Northern Tool & Equipment voluntarily dismissed its customs case on the classification of its agricultural sprayers at the Court of International Trade. The importer brought the suit in 2022 to claim that its sprayers of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 8424.49.0000, dutiable at 2.4%, and 8424.41.1000, free of duty, and secondary subheading 9903.88.03, which carries a 25% Section 301 duty, should be classified under the duty-free subheading 9817.00.5000. Northern Tool dismissed a similar case last month (see 2501240017). Counsel for the company didn't respond to a request for comment (Northern Tool & Equipment v. United States, CIT # 22-00329).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Target General Merchandise said in a Feb. 20 response to a U.S. cross-motion for judgment in its classification case that it no longer will be disputing CBP’s classification of its artificial Christmas trees, explaining that the government is already arguing that the trees should be classified under a duty-free Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading (Target General Merchandise v. United States, CIT Consol. # 15-00069).
Importer Mitsubishi Power Americas asked leave Feb. 18 from the Court of International Trade to file a short sur-reply to the U.S.’s support of a cross-motion for judgment (Mitsubishi Power Americas v. United States, CIT # 21-00573).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
After the Court of International Trade denied hoverboard importer 3BTect’s motion to strike three expert reports from the record of its classification dispute, the importer switched Feb. 14 to targeting the factual basis of the government’s cross-motion for judgment in a 72-page response brief (3BTech v. United States, CIT # 21-00026).