In a scope ruling released May 7, the Commerce Department said that certain temporary use spare tires imported from China by Logistical Resource Development aren’t subject to antidumping and countervailing duty orders on Chinese passenger vehicle and light truck tires. It has reached similar decisions regarding temporary use tires from Taiwan and Thailand (see 2403120022) and 2401250038).
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 lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
A product is "imported" for duty drawback purposes when it's admitted into a foreign-trade zone and not when entered for domestic consumption, the Court of International Trade held on May 15. Judge Timothy Reif said the definition of "importation" found in both the dictionary and Supreme Court precedent distinguishes importation from entry.
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 April 29 - May 7 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 Spector & Co. asked the Court of International Trade for relief from an order dismissing the case for lack of prosecution. The trade court dismissed the case, which is challenging CBP's classification of Spector's notebooks under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4820.10.20.60, since the suit was added to the customs case management calendar and not removed before the expiration of the "applicable period of time of removal" (see 2505050001) (Spector & Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00087).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Importer Amoena argued May 9 again that their mastectomy brassieres should have been classified as medical accessories, not “other” brassieres, saying that “a straightforward ‘visual review’” of the products wasn’t enough on its own to classify them. It also asked the trade court to accept certain apparently unaddressed facts on the record (Amoena USA Corp. v. United States, CIT #20-00100).