The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
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 following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
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.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the higher 35% duty rate for tuna salad pouches imported by StarKist in a March 30 opinion, siding with CBP's preferred Harmonized Tariff Schedule classification. The Court of International Trade first sided with CBP, upholding the agency's finding that the tuna salad pouches are "not minced" and "in oil." The Federal Circuit agreed with the trade court and said that the pouches are indeed not minced and in oil, prompting their placement under HTS subheading 1604.14.10.
The Court of International Trade ruled that CBP properly classified eight models of gloves imported by Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co. as knit textile gloves, rather than as gloves made of plastics. In a March 25 opinion, Judge Timothy Stanceu sided with the government and ruled CBP correctly classified the gloves imported from China and South Korea in 2015 and correctly denied Magid's 2016 CBP protest (Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co. v. United States, CIT #16-00150).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The submission or completion of CBP and Department of Defense forms related to imports of household goods and personal effects constitutes "customs business" and requires any third-party filers to be licensed customs brokers, the agency said in September ruling that was recently released. The ruling came in response to an internal CBP information request from the Port of Baltimore on the requirements for the submission of CBP forms 3461, 7501, 3299, and DOD Form 1252.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative sought confidential advice from “private-sector advisory committees,” believed to be under the Industry Trade Advisory Committee (ITAC) program managed jointly by USTR and the Commerce Department, before imposing the List 3 Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports, Stephen Vaughn, the agency’s then-general counsel, wrote then-USTR Robert Lighthizer on Sept. 17, 2018. The document was one of about a dozen “decision memos” spanning 488 pages that DOJ filed March 24 in the Section 301 litigation docket (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052) at the Court of International Trade as an “appendix” to oral argument held Feb. 1 (see 2202010059).
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.