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).
toarticlessource documents
Search Primer
Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.
Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "surrogate value").
Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead. (e.g., CIT).
Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., CBP +ruling).
Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., ruling -NY).
Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls") or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").
CBP will pay refunds of Section 301 duties paid on importer CITIC Dicastal Wheel Manufacturing's aluminum road wheels, the importer and the U.S. said in a stipulated judgment submitted to the Court of International Trade on April 30. The judgment said CITIC Dicastal's wheels were subject to an exclusion from a 10% Section 301 duty the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative granted for wheels imported under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8708.70.4545, which provides for aluminum wheels for motor vehicles of heading 8701 to 8705 (CITIC Dicastal Wheel Manufacturing Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00159).
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Snap One, doing business as SnapAV or Control 4, voluntarily dismissed two customs suits at the Court of International Trade on April 28. The company brought the cases to contest CBP's classification of its network management controllers of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8537.10.9170, dutiable at 2.7%, arguing that instead the goods fit under subheading 8517.62.0090, free of general and Section 301 duties. Counsel for Snap One didn't immediately respond to request for comment (Snap One v. United States, CIT #s 23-00078, -00079).
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 following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Cable importer Cyber Power Systems brought two more classification disputes to the Court of International Trade April 28 (see 2504010067 and 2305170023 (Cyber Power Systems (USA) Inc. v. United States, CIT # 21-00199).
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).
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade: