The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Dec. 11-13 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):
Cozy Comfort Company, which produces the Cozy, a “wearable blanket,” filed Dec. 8 in opposition of a DOJ motion for summary judgment in its classification case (Cozy Comfort Company v. U.S., CIT # 22-00173).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
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.
The Court of International Trade ruled Dec. 11 that imported industrial shredders that use blades to break up material carry no duties because they are classifiable as crushing and grinding machines.
A U.S. gun sights importer again argued in the Court of International Trade on Dec. 8 that its products should be classified under the tariff schedule as “apparatuses,” not as “light fittings,” because the latter provision didn't fully cover the sights’ use of ionizing radiation (Trijicon Inc. v. United States, CIT # 22-00040).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit conducted oral argument Dec. 6 on an appeal of a tariff classification case that ruled the wrapping, called “net wrap,” that certain farming machines use to package bales of hay were not considered agricultural equipment but rather textiles, carrying a higher duty (RKW Klerks v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1210).