The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
CBP improperly classified importer AB Specialty Silicones' specialty silicone chemicals as organic-silicone compounds instead of as silicone compounds or organo-inorganic compounds, AB argued in an April 16 complaint at the Court of International Trade (AB Specialty Silicones v. United States, CIT # 25-00067).
The Court of International Trade on April 15 denied importer Under the Weather's motion for leave to amend its complaint to add a claim regarding CBP's prior tariff treatment of its imported pop-up tent "pods." Judge Timothy Reif said the proposed amended complaint "was filed after undue delay and is futile."
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The U.S. and plaintiff Tokyo Ohka Kogyo America filed April 10 a stipulated judgment for a 2017 case involving a dispute over the classification of certain photoresists (Toykyo Ohka Kogyo America v. United States, CIT # 17-00070).
CBP improperly declined to accept the proper valuation of various iron and steel products imported by NOA Brands America, the importer argued in an April 10 complaint at the Court of International Trade (NOA Brands America v. United States, CIT # 23-00109).
In April 8 oral argument involving a large number of parties, Court of International Trade Judge Jane Restani said she thinks she knows how she’ll rule on a petitioner’s Tier 2 price benchmark question about whether Kazakh natural gas export prices are available to Russian purchasers (Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00239).
Disagreeing with exporter BASF, the U.S. argued April 7 that the exporter’s beta-carotene product Betatene had been properly classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule because it was used as a specific -- not general -- food additive, and its additives were used for more than just stable transportation or preservation (BASF Corporation v. United States, CIT Consol. # 12-00422).
The U.S. and importer Vecoplan filed a stipulated judgment at the Court of International Trade granting duty-free treatment to the importer's grinding machines. CBP initially classified the entries, which are described as "industrial size reduction machines that operate with a single shaft rotor with cutting inserts," under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8479.89.94. This subheading covers certain machines and mechanical appliances with individual functions and comes with a 2.5% duty rate. The parties agreed to classify the goods under duty-free subheading 8479.82.00, which covers "[m]ixing, kneading, crushing, grinding, screening, sifting, homogenizing, emulsifying or stirring machines" (Vecoplan v. United States, CIT # 20-00141).
The Court of International Trade on April 8 rejected Georgia woman Skeeter-Jo Stoute-Francois' challenge to four questions on the October 2021 customs broker license exam. Judge Lisa Wang held that for three of the questions, Stoute-Francois formulated her own "factual scenarios" in arguing that there wasn't enough information to select the correct answer. For the remaining question, Wang said CBP's correct answer choice was backed by substantial evidence.