The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated between Oct. 27 and Oct. 29 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 Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated between Oct. 20 and Oct. 22 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):
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).
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.
Importer PF America dropped its case at the Court of International Trade on whether its flooring qualifies for an exclusion from Section 301 China tariffs, according to a Sept. 19 notice of dismissal. The importer filed suit in 2022 to claim that its flooring of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 3918.10.1000 qualifies for a Section 301 exclusion under secondary subheading 9903.88.46. Counsel for PF America didn't respond to a request for comment (PF America v. United States, CIT # 22-00060).
The government, namely CBP and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, should be stopped from denying the application of Section 301 China tariff exclusions to importer Mitsubishi Power Americas' selective catalytic reduction imports, Mitsubishi told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Filing its opening brief on Sept. 12, Mitsubishi said CBP and USTR "misrepresented the original grant of the exclusions to Mitsubishi" when they approved the requests, leading the importer to rely on these "misrepresentations to its detriment" (Mitsubishi Power Americas v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1828).
The Court of International Trade set aside its previous dismissal for lack of prosecution of importer Warby Parker's case on the applicability of Section 301 exclusions to its glasses frames and lenses. Judge Timothy Reif agreed to restore the case to the customs case management calendar and extend the time for the case to remain on the calendar for another six months (Warby Parker v. United States, CIT # 23-00042).
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 3 dropped two cases on the applicability of Section 301 exclusions from its customs case management calendar for lack of prosecution. Both cases were placed on the calendar and not removed from it at the expiration of the "applicable period of time of removal." One case, brought by Warby Parker, was brought to contest CBP's denial of its protest over whether Section 301 duties apply to its frames and lenses classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9004.90.0000 and secondary subheading 9903.88.15 (see 2303070024). The other case, filed by MTD Products, was filed to contest CBP's denial of its protest claiming its gasoline engines of HTS subheading 8407.90.1020, free of duty, and secondary subheading 9903.88.02, should be exempt from Section 301 duties under secondary subheading 9903.88.12 (see 2309130063) (Warby Parker v. U.S., CIT # 23-00042) (MTD Products v. U.S., CIT # 23-00184).
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Responding to a U.S. cross-motion for judgment in its classification dispute, computer parts importer Atlas Power said the government was trying to raise a new argument that none of Atlas’ entries in question were eligible for a Section 301 tariff exclusion because they were entered under a privileged status into a foreign-trade zone (Atlas Power LLC v. United States, CIT # 23-00084).