The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on Sept. 25 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 following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade's ruling that a product is "imported" for duty drawback purposes when it's admitted into a foreign-trade zone and not when entered for domestic consumption would lead to a partial repeal of the FTZ Act, importer King Maker Marketing argued in a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. King Maker said the trade court's decision would lead to "absurd and anomalous results," since it would require finding the clock for drawback claims to start before the right to make the claim accrues (King Maker Marketing v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1819).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Importer Geotab said in a Sept. 30 complaint that its "GO Devices" -- used for “vehicle tracking and telematics” -- should've been classified as “other apparatus for the transmission or reception of voice, images or other data,” not “radio navigational aid apparatus.” As a result, they should have been liquidated under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8517, which provides for a 7.5% Section 301 duty on Chinese-origin products, not heading 8526, which carries a 25% Section 301 duty (Geotab Inc. v. United States, CIT # 23-00185).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The parties challenging tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act asked the Supreme Court to grant divided argument among the three groups of plaintiffs challenging the tariffs and to allow for 45 minutes of argument for each side. The three groups are five importers that filed suit at the Court of International Trade, 12 U.S. states that filed suit at CIT, and two importers that filed their case at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Importer PF America dropped another case at the Court of International Trade seeking exclusions from Section 301 duties on its vinyl flooring imports. The importer entered the goods under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 3916.20.0020 and 9903.88.17, though CBP classified the goods under subheadings 3916.20.0091 and 9903.88.02, subjecting the flooring to Section 301 duties. Recently, PF America dropped a separate suit also seeking Section 301 exclusions on its flooring entries under a similar secondary subheading (see 2509190050) (PF America v. United States, CIT # 22-00255).
Responding Sept. 22 to the government’s opposition to its motion for judgment, importer Zoetis said that its products were only ingredients of animal feed additives, not additives in themselves (Zoetis Services, v. United States, CIT # 22-00056).