The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
An amended fraud allegation by the government against Crown Cork & Seal should withstand a motion to dismiss, a July 27 government opposition brief said (United S ork & Seal, USA, Inc., et al., CIT #21-361).
The U.S and importer Target General Merchandise reached a settlement over the proper classification of girl's glitter/fabric ballet shoes, the parties said in a July 26 stipulation of dismissal. The Court of International Trade then order the case be dismissed without providing any details as to the settlement. Target launched its case in 2017, though the matter sat on the customs case management calendar for over four years. The ballet shoes were entered under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6402.99.41 as oxford height footwear of the slip-on type, dutiable at 12.5%, though CBP liquidated them under subheading 6402.99.49, dutiable at 37.5%. Target, via its October 2021 complaint, laid out its case for the shoes to be classified under this first subheading (Target General Merchandise v. U.S., CIT #17-00007).
The Court of International Trade in a July 27 order denied plaintiff Second Nature Designs' bid for a test case and suspension of another action at the trade court. Judge Gary Katzmann said that the U.S.'s opposition to the motion was denied as moot in light of the court's recent ruling in Cyber Power v. U.S., which found that the government does not have the legal authority to file a counterclaim in a customs case. Following the order, the two cases will continue separately (see 2207200052) (Second Nature Designs v. U.S., CIT #17-00271).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated July 25 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 following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade ruled that the U.S. can't file a counterclaim in a customs case brought by Second Nature Designs, according to a July 25 order by Judge Gary Katzmann (Second Nature Designs v. U.S., CIT #21-00271).
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 in a July 22 order consolidated three customs cases concerning the proper classification of electric scooters, known as hoverboards. Two of the cases, including the now-lead case, were brought by 3BTech, while the remaining action was brought by Pro-Com Products. The cases were launched to argue that the hoverboards were classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9503.00.0090, which provides for "Tricycles, scooters, pedal cars and similar wheeled toys; dollsʼ carriages; dolls, other toys; reduced-scale ('scale') models and similar recreational models, working or not; puzzles of all kinds; parts and accessories thereof: Other," and allows subject goods to enter duty-free (see 2112100053) (3BTech Inc. v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00026).
The Court of International Trade in a July 25 opinion ruled that the U.S. can't file a counterclaim in a customs case brought by Second Nature Designs, redenominating the counterclaim seeking a different Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading for various decorative items as a defense. Adopting the court's recent decision in a separate customs case, Judge Gary Katzmann held that there is no statutory basis for the U.S. to file a counterclaim. However, the judge granted the U.S.' bid to amend its answer to Second Nature's complaint to incorporate the arguments found in its counterclaim, finding the plaintiff's arguments unconvincing. The importer said the amendment is barred by the finality of liquidation, illegal on Constitutional grounds and unreasonably prejudicial.