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 5 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):
In the March 23 Customs Bulletin (Vol. 56, No. 11), CBP published a proposal to revoke rulings on step stools and sushi ginger.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The unanimous three-judge opinion at the U.S. Court of International Trade remanding the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative on April 1 for correcting deficiencies in the agency’s Administrative Procedure Act compliance extends the current litigation at least until mid-summer. The opinion, written by Chief Judge Mark Barnett and coming two months to the day after Feb. 1 oral argument was held (see 2202010059), gives USTR 90 days, to June 30, to respond to the remand order, and orders the plaintiffs and the government to submit a joint status report 14 days after that, including a proposed schedule on “the further disposition of this litigation.”
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Decisions by a single port of entry cannot act as the basis for claims of an established treatment nationally by CBP for customs purposes, DOJ told the Court of International Trade in a brief filed March 29. In a tariff classification challenge brought by Kent International related to bicycle seats, DOJ said CBP New York/Newark's granting of protests doesn't establish a treatment that required notice and comment before CBP Long Beach classified the bicycle seats in a different subheading (Kent International Inc. v. United States, CIT #15-00135).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a 35% duty rate for StarKist's tuna salad pouches, agreeing with CBP's preferred Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading, in a March 30 opinion. Upholding the Court of International Trade's opinion, Judges Kimberly Moore, Timothy Dyk and Jimmie Reyna said that the tuna pouches were "not minced" and "in oil," prompting their placement under subheading 1604.14.10.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the higher 35% duty rate for tuna salad pouches imported by StarKist in a March 30 opinion, siding with CBP's preferred Harmonized Tariff Schedule classification. The Court of International Trade first sided with CBP, upholding the agency's finding that the tuna salad pouches are "not minced" and "in oil." The Federal Circuit agreed with the trade court and said that the pouches are indeed not minced and in oil, prompting their placement under HTS subheading 1604.14.10.