Worn clothing commingled with other apparel bound for recycling should be eligible for duty-free treatment, importer Dis Vintage argued in a May 1 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The merchandise at issue is worn clothing imported to be recycled or for continued use as clothing. Dis Vintage asked the court to find the worn clothing was properly classified under the duty-free Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6309.00.100 and to refund all duties plus interest (Dis Vintage v. U.S., CIT # 23-00033).
Ben Perkins
Ben Perkins, Assistant Editor, is a reporter with International Trade Today and its sister publications, Trade Law Daily and Export Compliance Daily, where he covers sanctions, court rulings, and other international trade issues. He previously worked as a trade analyst for a Washington D.C. advisory firm. Ben holds a B.A. in English from the University of New Hampshire and an M.A. in International Relations from American University. Ben joined the staff of Warren Communications News in 2022.
The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department’s determination that the South Korean government did not subsidize Hyundai Steel by providing electricity for less than adequate remuneration (LTAR), the DOJ argued in an April 28 motion. The motion came in reply to requests for judgment filed by Hyundai Steel and consolidated-plaintiff Nucor, which contested separate aspects of the final results of a 2019 countervailing duty review on hot-rolled steel flat products from South Korea (Hyundai Steel v. United States, CIT # 22-00170).
The South Korean government doesn't provide a countervailable subsidy to the South Korean steel industry through the provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration, the Court of International Trade ruled April 28. Judge Mark Barnett sustained the results of the Commerce Department's 2019 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea. Barnett said Commerce has considerable leeway to make reasonable methodological choices like it did in the review.
The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty review on activated carbon from China. In an April 28 opinion, Judge Mark Barnett said the court was satisfied with the agency's further explanation of its surrogate value selection for coal-based carbonized materials and its selection of financial statements used to calculate surrogate ratios.
Counterweights for mini-excavators are "backhoe" parts and should not be excluded from Section 301 tariffs, DOJ argued in an April 28 brief at the Court of International Trade. The brief bolstered the government's January motion for judgment (see 2301240063) by arguing that the Bobcat mini-excavators that the counterweights are "designed for and exclusively used on" are themselves "backhoes" (Norca Engineered Products v. U.S., CIT # 21-00305)
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated May 1 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 are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
An enriched ammonium sulfate isotope was incorrectly ruled as being within the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on ammonium sulfate from China, Cambridge Isotope Laboratories argued in an April 28 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Cambridge sued to contest a final scope ruling, issued March 16, which held that NLM-713-10, which consists of an enriched 15N ammonium sulfate isotope, fell within the scope of the orders on ammonium sulfate from China (Cambridge Isotope Laboratories v. U.S., CIT # 23-00080).
The Court of International Trade sustained Commerce's remand results April 28 after the agency further explained its surrogate value selection for coal-based carbonized materials and the financial statements used to calculate surrogate financial ratios in the 2018-19 antidumping review on activated carbon from China (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00131). Judge Mark Barnett found that Commerce’s selection of Malaysian data to value carbonized material was supported by substantial evidence. While each review is separate, Commerce is not prevented from acting in accord with prior reviews when the present review does not contain new information warranting a departure from prior practice, Barnett said.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York: