An exporter of vehicle side bars said April 8 that Section 301 tariff exclusions shouldn't necessarily be considered princpal use provisions, but should instead be analyzed as either principal use, eo nomine or actual use provisions on a case-by-case basis because no published guidance singles out a specific method (Keystone Automotive Operations v. U.S., CIT # 21-00215).
The following lawsuits were filed recently 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):
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).
CBP failed to apply an Office of the U.S. Trade Representative-granted Section 301 exclusion for "flexible pressure sensitive LCD display devices used as a surface for electronic wiring" to importer Kent Displays' merchandise, the importer told the Court of International Trade in an Oct. 27 motion for summary judgment. Kent argued that its Model WT16312 Dashboard is the type of device as described by the exclusion and, as such, should be free of the 25% Section 301 duties under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9013.80.7000 (Kent Displays v. United States, CIT # 20-00156).
Imported wood and metal seats met the requirements for Section 301 tariff exclusions but had those duties unlawfully levied upon them by CBP, Georgia-based furniture importer and wholesaler Belnick said in its Oct. 17 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Belnick v. U.S., CIT # 23-00072).
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).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Aug. 31 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):
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).
Valve pressure relief components should have been granted Section 301 exclusions, importer Bray International and three of its affiliates said in a July 31 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Bray International v. U.S., CIT # 21-00332).