CBP released its April 6 Customs Bulletin (Vol. 56, No. 13), which includes the following ruling actions:
Decisions by a single port of entry cannot act as the basis for claims of an established treatment nationally by CBP for customs purposes, DOJ told the Court of International Trade in a brief filed March 29. In a tariff classification challenge brought by Kent International related to bicycle seats, DOJ said CBP New York/Newark's granting of protests doesn't establish a treatment that required notice and comment before CBP Long Beach classified the bicycle seats in a different subheading (Kent International Inc. v. United States, CIT #15-00135).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a 35% duty rate for StarKist's tuna salad pouches, agreeing with CBP's preferred Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading, in a March 30 opinion. Upholding the Court of International Trade's opinion, Judges Kimberly Moore, Timothy Dyk and Jimmie Reyna said that the tuna pouches were "not minced" and "in oil," prompting their placement under subheading 1604.14.10.
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 following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Court of International Trade ruled in a March 25 opinion that CBP properly classified eight models of gloves imported by Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co. under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6116.10.55, dutiable at 13.2%. Magid argued for classification in subheading 3926.20.10, free of duty. Judge Timothy Stanceu sided with the government, ruling that heading 6116 and subheading 6116.10.55 describe the gloves in question.
CBP released its March 23 Customs Bulletin (Vol. 56, No. 11), which includes the following ruling actions:
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Processes performed on steel bars do not constitute "further working" for the purposes of tariff classification, meaning the steel bars are still classifiable in a tariff subheading subject to Section 232 tariffs, DOJ said in a brief filed March 21 at the Court of International Trade. Arguing in favor of its cross-motion for judgment, DOJ said that imported grinding rods from China are still classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7228.40.00 as “Other bars and rods of other alloy steel … not further worked than forged." ME Global is seeking reclassification of the rods under the residual subheading 7326.11.00 as "other articles of iron or steel,” which are not subject to Section 232 tariffs (ME Global Inc. v. United States, CIT #19-00179).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York: