The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Just because Section 232 tariffs are placed in Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, this doesn't make them remedial tariffs, the Department of Justice told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 14 brief. The tariffs also aren't temporary, don't count as a double remedy and can be deducted from an antidumping duty respondent's export price, the brief said (Borusan Mannesman Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2097).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Jan. 10 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):
The Court of International Trade should compel CBP to respond to Wheatland Tube's request for information and request for a tariff classification ruling over certain electrical conduits from Mexico, Wheatland Tube told the Court of International in a Jan. 12 complaint. Seeking a writ of mandamus in a motion filed concurrently with the complaint, Wheatland alleges that certain importers, namely Shamrock Building Materials, are mis-labelling their imports to qualify for an exception to Section 232 steel and aluminum duties (Wheatland Tube Company v. United States, CIT #22-00004).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Jan. 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):
The Court of International Trade granted importer Kehoe Component Sales' consent motion to designate its action as a test case and suspend its two other actions under the test case. All three cases involve the proper Harmonized Tariff Schedule classification of the importer's heat blanket controllers. Kehoe said that the resolution of all of the actions could be best served by designating a single test case. The Department of Justice's Peter Mancuso consented to the motion (Kehoe Component Sales v. U.S., CIT #19-00007).
CBP misclassified Mitsubishi Power America's supported selective catalytic reduction (SCR) catalysts, resulting in the entries wrongly being assessed Section 301 duties, the importer argued in a Jan. 4 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Instead, the supported SCR catalysts fit under a different Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading that was granted an exclusion to the Section 301 China tariffs by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the importer said (Mitsubishi Power Americas v. U.S., CIT #21-00573).