Importer Atlas Power said April 15 in a reply to a government cross-motion for judgment that “years” after entering its merchandise, the United States was suddenly offering “a recently developed explanation” as to why its products, computer parts, had been assessed Section 301 duties (Atlas Power v. United States, CIT # 23-00084).
In response to importer Mitsubishi Power Americas’ motion for judgment, the U.S. filed a cross-motion for judgment saying the importers’ products are filters and don’t fall under the “basket provision” for other catalytic reactors (Mitsubishi Power Americas v. U.S., CIT #21-00573).
After the Court of International Trade ruled that a Section 301 exclusion for side protective attachments for trucks is a principal use provision, not an eo nomine one (see 2410070030), a vehicle accessories importer asked CIT Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves on Nov. 6 to either reconsider or let it bring an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Keystone Automotive Operations v. U.S., CIT # 21-00215).
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 1 dismissed importer Travelway Group International's customs suit for lack of prosecution. The company put its action on the customs case management calendar but failed to remove it or request an extension before time expired. Travelway brought the suit to argue that its backpacks and bags of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 4202.92.3120 and 4202.92.3131 qualify for Section 301 exclusions. Counsel for the importer didn't respond to a request for comment (Travelway Group International v. United States, CIT # 22-00312).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated between Oct. 22 and Oct. 26 with the following headquarters ruling (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 on Oct. 7 sent a customs classification dispute on truck steps to a bench trial after finding that the undisputed facts are insufficient for conducting a principal use analysis on whether the products are "side protective attachments." Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves held that while a Section 301 exclusion for "side protective attachments" is a principal use provision, and not a provision for an individual product, the court can't at this time properly assess the imports at issue under a principal use framework.
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 7 sent a customs classification dispute on truck steps to a bench trial after finding that the undisputed facts are insufficient for conducting a principal use analysis on whether the products are "side protective attachments." Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves held that while a Section 301 exclusion for "side protective attachments" is a principal use provision, and not a provision for an individual product, the court can't at this time properly assess the imports at issue under a principal use framework.
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 30 granted a pair of voluntary dismissal motions from importer Travelway Group International on its two import classification cases. Both cases sought Section 301 exclusions for its backpack and bag entries of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 4202.92.3120 and 4202.92.3131. Counsel for Travelway didn't immediately respond to request for comment (Travelway Group International v. United States, CIT #s 22-00313, 23-00057).
Importer Omni Distributors on Sept. 24 voluntarily dismissed its customs case at the Court of International Trade on the classification of its hand sanitizer imports. Omni Distributors said the goods, classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 3824.99.9297, should qualify for Section 301 exclusions under secondary subheading 9903.88.45. Counsel for the importer declined to comment (Omni Distributors v. United States, CIT # 22-00250).
Hoverboards are light electric vehicles, not wheeled toys, the U.S. said in a cross-motion for summary judgment Sep. 4 (3BTech v. U.S., CIT # 21-00026).