Newly Released CBP HQ Rulings for May 20
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated May 20 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):
H314176: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 3802-20-102015; Subheading 9801.00.10, HTSUS; Motor Vehicles
| Ruling: The motor vehicles qualify for duty-free status as U.S. goods returned under subheading 9801.00.10, and the protest should be granted. |
| Issue: Further review of CBP's decision to deny a protest that the motor vehicles are U.S. good returned. The port said that documentation regarding original export and reimport was not submitted to demonstrate eligiblity for the classification, and that the protestant only submitted EPA and DOT forms as supporting documents. |
| Reason; As required by 19 CFR 10.1(a)(1), the importer submitted a foreign shipper declaration with the port of exportation, the date of exportation, merchandise description, quantity and value of the motor vehicles, as well as the VIN number, which demonstrates it was manufactured in the U.S. The importer also submitted the required declaration that the foreign shipper's statement is true. |
| Ruling Date: March 18, 2021 |
H318835: Application for Further Review; 19 U.S.C. § 1307; Detention No. 2592895; Uniqlo Co., Ltd.; Entry 231-2843345-1; Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps; XPCC; [Chenfeng (Jiangsu) Apparel Co., Ltd. (“Chenfeng”)] Withhold Release Order; WRO; Forced Labor
| Ruling: Six of the seven styles of apparel are admissible; the seventh style is not. |
| Issue: Whether apparel detained by CBP under a withhold release order on all cotton and cotton products produced by the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps should be released. |
| Reason: For six of the styles, Uniqlo has provided evidence to sufficiently establish they were not subject to the WRO because they were made of polyester and other man-made materials, not cotton. For the seventh style, which was made of cotton, the importer has provided evidence relating to the sale, acquisition, source location, transportation, and delivery of the raw cotton used to produce the subject cotton garments, but it has not provided any probative evidence to establish that their imported cotton garments were not produced in part by forced labor by the XPCC. |
| Ruling Date: May 18, 2021 (link unavailable as of press time) |