Importer MKI Enterprise Group, doing business as Winbo USA, filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on April 22 to contest CBP's denial of a Section 301 exclusion for its entries of "steel side protective attachments for motor vehicles, specifically side bars, fern bars, and bars" from China (MKI Enterprise Group v. United States, CIT # 22-00131).
Section 301 tariff exclusions
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has established an exclusion process for Section 301 tariffs on China. In a series of rounds since the tariffs took effect, importers have been able to request exclusions from the tariffs, as well as extensions to existing exclusions. Many exclusions have been allowed to expire, as well. Section 301 exclusions are applicable to all importers of a given good, which may be defined as an entire tariff schedule subheading or a subset of a subheading outlined in a written description.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Jan. 9-10 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):
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top 20 stories published in 2023. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference numbers.
Importer Dell Will Customs Brokers (USA) Inc. dismissed its customs case on Dec. 27 at the Court of International Trade. The company filed suit in December 2021 claiming that its scaffolding, parts or accessories, of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 7308.40.00 and 9403.20.00, are exempt from Section 301 China tariffs under secondary subheading 9903.88.03. Counsel for Dell Will didn't respond to our request for comment (Dell Will Customs Brokers (USA) Inc. F/A Metal Tech-Omega Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00630).
CBP improperly levied Section 301 duties against Greenington's bamboo furniture imports from China, the importer argued in a Nov. 27 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Greenington said CBP wasn't supported in finding that its entries didn't qualify for a Section 301 exclusion under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9903.88.67, which covers "household furniture of high-pressure laminated bamboo, other than babies' or children's furniture" set under subheading 9403.82.0015 (Greenington v. United States Customs and Border Protection, CIT # 23-00243).
Imported electronic bicycles were improperly classified by CBP and would have been excluded from Section 301 duties, Washington-based e-bike importer Arba International (doing business as Ariel Rider E-Bikes) said in its Oct. 13 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Arba International v. U.S., CIT # 23-00215).
CBP incorrectly denied protests seeking retroactive refunds of Section 301 duties for entries of furniture parts and boxes imported from China, importer Store Supply Warehouse said in an Aug. 4 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The protested items consisted of nine entries of hardware racks, three entries of jewelry boxes and 10 entries of showcase parts imported through the Port of Savannah (Store Supply Warehouse v. U.S., CIT # 23-00035).