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).
The Court of International Trade granted importer APS Auto Parts Specialist's voluntary dismissals of its two cases seeking Section 301 exclusions. APS challenged CBP's denial of its protest, claiming that its steel side protective attachment auto parts of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8708.29.5060 qualify for Section 301 tariff exclusions under secondary subheading 9903.88.45. The importer dismissed the cases on May 28 (see 2505280045) (APS Auto Parts Specialist v. United States, CIT #s 21-00233, 21-00268).
Importer Mitsubishi Power Americas will appeal a Court of International Trade decision from April 29 on the classification of the company's catalyst blocks, according to a notice of appeal. The trade court said the catalyst blocks were filters or purifiers and properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8421 and not as "other" catalytic reactors under heading 3815 (see 2504300067). Mitsubishi had requested Section 301 exclusions for its products but the importer failed to specify a particular HTS heading for the exclusion. However, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's exclusion that would apply to the products didn't actually cover Mitsubishi's goods, but even if had, the exclusion was drafted to cover products under heading 3815, the court said (Mitsubishi Power Americas, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00573).
Importer APS Auto Parts Specialist on May 28 dismissed two of its Court of International Trade cases seeking Section 301 exclusions. In both cases, APS challenged CBP's denial of its protest claiming that its steel side protective attachment auto parts of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8708.29.5060 qualify for Section 301 tariff exclusions under secondary subheading 9903.88.45. Counsel for APS didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (APS Auto Parts Specialist v. United States, CIT #s 21-00233, -00268).
Food storage importer Huhtamaki brought a May 8 complaint to the Court of International Trade saying CBP wrongly applied Section 301 duties to its clamshell container imports. Prior to entry, the importer said, it had undertaken “a months-long wild-goose chase” with CBP that ended with verbal confirmation the imports were excluded (Huhtamaki, Inc. v. United States, CIT # 24-00050).
The Court of International Trade on May 2 dismissed three customs cases for lack of prosecution. All three were added to the customs case management calendar and not removed before the expiration of the "applicable period of time of removal" (Flow Control v. U.S., CIT # 21-00201; Safran Electronics and Defense v. U.S., CIT # 23-00086; Spector & Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00087).
Importer Mitsubishi Power Americas’ catalyst blocks were filters or purifiers and properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8421, not “other” catalytic reactors under 3815, the Court of International Trade ruled April 29.
The Court of International Trade ruled April 29 that importer Mitsubishi Power Americas’ catalyst blocks, which chemically convert nitrous oxide from industrial pollutant emitters into nitrogen and water, were filters, not “other” catalytic reactors. It acknowledged that Mitsubishi had defined a Section 301 exclusion for “other” catalytic reactors based on the products, but said the importer had been on notice that its products might not be covered by the language of the exclusion because the language of the exclusions themselves, not product descriptions contained in the exclusion requests, define what's subject to the exclusions (Mitsubishi Power Americas v. United States, CIT # 21-00573).
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).