The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade on June 30 granted importer Environment One's bid to dismiss its case seeking Section 301 refunds. The case concerns 31 entries classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8536.50.7000, a duty-free provision subject to Section 301 tariffs. Environment One filed a protest challenging the liquidation, claiming a Section 301 exclusion granted after entry. The company then took to the trade court to claim that the government violated the law by creating a protest requirement for Section 301 refunds despite that statute applying to only certain CBP decisions (see 2210260011) (Environment One v. United States, CIT # 22-00124).
Surety firm American Service Insurance Co. moved to dismiss its customs case at the Court of International Trade. American Service Insurance, serving as a surety for New Image Global, filed the case to contest how CBP weighed its tobacco products and cigar wraps classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2403.91.2000, dutiable at $24.78 per pound. (American Service Insurance Co. v. United States, CIT # 16-00122).
CBP reversed an evasion determination against Scioto Valley Woodworking, after initially having found that Scioto had imported Chinese wooden cabinets and vanities by transshipment through Malaysia using adverse facts available. Upon review, CBP found the use of AFA was unwarranted and said evidence showed the manufacturer, Alno, could and did produce wooden cabinets and vanities in Malaysia.
Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) asked the Court of International Trade to stay a court order for CBP to reliquidate entries of its imported mixtures while the importer pursues an appeal of the relevant CIT decision, issued in May (see 2305260048). CIT had found the importer'ws frozen fruit mixtures classifiable under the basket tariff subheading 0811.90.80 pf the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. as "other" frozen fruits, dutiable at 14.5%, rather than under a duty-free classification under subheading 2106.90.98 as “[f]ood preparations not otherwise specified or included," as advocated by Nature's Touch.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Chinese exporter Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. and its U.S. importer Carbon Activated Corp. will appeal a Court of International Trade decision upholding the Commerce Department's surrogate value picks for coal-based carbonized materials and financial statement selections used to calculate surrogate ratios. The companies are challenging an antidumping duty administrative review on activated carbon from China, the June 27 notice of appeal said. CIT Judge Mark Barnett ruled that Commerce's pick of Malaysian data for Harmonized System subheading 4402.90.1000 to value carbonized material was backed by substantial evidence, as was the agency's selection of the 2018 Bravo Green financial statements (see 2305010006) (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00131).
The Court of International Trade granted importer Global Invacom's bid to dismiss its customs suit on the classification of its low noise blocks and switches. The company argued that the items should be classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 8517.69.00 or 8517.70.00, free of duty, which provides for "transmission apparatus for radio-broadcasting." CBP classified them under subheading 8525.50.30 as "transmission apparatus for radio-broadcasting or television, whether or not incorporating reception apparatus or sound recording or reproducing apparatus; television cameras, digital cameras and video camera recorders: Transmission apparatus: Television: Other," dutiable at 1.8%, 1.3% or 0.9%. In 2020, the trade court sided with the U.S. in a customs spat concerning the terms in headings 8517 and 8525 and the classification of printed circuit board assemblies (Global Invacom v. United States, CIT # 21-00261).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Importer Tokyo Ohka Kogyo America filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on June 26 to contest the tariff classification of its photoresists and other chemical products for photographic uses. The suit concerns two different protests filed with CBP, one brought before the agency in 2008 and the other in 2009, though both were denied in 2017. The case on the two protests was severed in 2021 from a separate court action also brought by Tokyo Ohka Kogyo. The company is claiming that CBP improperly classified the merchandise under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 3707.90.32, dutiable at 3.2%, claiming that the goods instead should have been classified under subheading 3707.10.00, dutiable at 3% (Tokyo Ohka Kogyo America v. United States, CIT # 21-00371).