Importer Cozy Comfort will appeal the Court of International Trade's recent ruling finding that The Comfy, a "wearable, oversized item covering the front and back with a hood, sleeves, ribbed cuffs, and a marsupial pocket," is a pullover and not a blanket (see 2506170063). After conducting a five-day bench trial in the case, CIT Judge Stephen Vaden held that, as a matter of fact, The Comfy doesn't protect against "extreme cold," and that, as a matter of law, the item fits under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 6110, which provides for "pullovers." The judge specifically said the item fits under subheading 6110.30.30, dutiable at 32%. The importer now will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Cozy Comfort v. United States, CIT # 22-00173).
The U.S. again said June 23 that an importer’s mastectomy brassieres should be classified as brassieres, not medical accessories (Amoena USA Corp. v. U.S., CIT #20-00100).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Respondent Carbon Activated Tianjin asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 23 to rehear its antidumping duty case, arguing that a three-judge panel committed "legal error" by affirming the Commerce Department's selection of the surrogate value for carbonized material. Carbon Activated said the panel also erred in "misapprehending key distinctions between the administrative record" of the 2018-19 AD review on Chinese activated carbon and the records of prior reviews (Carbon Activated Tianjin v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2135).
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 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):
The U.S. and importer Marubeni-Itochu Steel America jointly stipulated settlement terms for the importer’s classification case June 20. They agreed that the epoxy resin used as a coating for some of Marubeni-Itochu’s products, pilings for a wall system, should be included in the valuation of products classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 7301 rather than heading 7308 (Marubeni-Itochu Steel America Inc. v. United States, CIT # 23-00149).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Responding to a U.S. cross-motion for judgment in its classification dispute, computer parts importer Atlas Power said the government was trying to raise a new argument that none of Atlas’ entries in question were eligible for a Section 301 tariff exclusion because they were entered under a privileged status into a foreign-trade zone (Atlas Power LLC v. United States, CIT # 23-00084).
The Supreme Court on June 20 denied a motion from importers Learning Resources and Hand2Mind to expedite consideration of their petition to have the high court take up their lawsuit against tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Learning Resources v. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).