CBP’s interpretation of the drawback statute and programming of its ACE Drawback Module led to an "absurd" rejection of substitution unused merchandise drawback eligibility for an importer of civil aviation equipment that disregards the basic structure of the tariff schedule, Spirit Aerosystems said in a March 24 motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade (Spirit Aerosystems v. U.S., CIT # 20-00094).
Harmonized Tariff Schedule
The Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) provide classification provisions and duty rates for almost every item that exists. It is a system of classifying and taxing all goods imported into the United States. The HTS is based on the international Harmonized System, which is a global standard for naming and describing trade products, and consists of a hierarchical structure that assigns a specific code and rate to each type of merchandise for duty, quota, and statistical purposes. The HTS was made effective on January 1, 1989, replacing the former Tariff Schedules of the United States. It is maintained by the U.S. International Trade Commission, but CBP is responsible for interpreting and enforcing the HTS.
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated March 21 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 Office of the U.S. Trade Representative complied with Administrative Procedure Act requirements when it set lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China, the Court of International Trade held in a much-anticipated opinion on March 17. After USTR provided more explanation of its tariff decisions on remand, judges Mark Barnett, Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves held that the explanations were not made impermissibly post hoc and cleared APA requirements.
CBP correctly classified a supermodule for use in hydrogen fuel-cell powerplants as parts of electric generators rather than as a water gas generator, DOJ argued in a March 15 motion at the Court of International Trade (HyAxium v. United States, CIT # 21-00057).
Industrial shredders imported by Vecoplan are classifiable as grinding and crushing tools under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule because the shredding operations break down material into small fragments and reduce the size of material by means of impacting the waste material, the importer argued in a March 15 motion (Vecoplan v. United States, CIT # 20-00126).
The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department's remand results after the agency further explained its surrogate value selection for coal-based carbonized materials and the financial statements used to calculate the surrogate financial ratios in the 2018-19 antidumping review on activated carbon, both DOJ and defendent-intervenors told CIT in separate responses submitted March 1 (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00131).
Frozen risottos are classified as pre-cooked foods under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States heading 1904, even though the risottos are only par-cooked and require more cooking by the consumer, CBP said in a recently released headquarters ruling. Though the importer argued for classification as food preparations of HTS heading 2106, CBP said foods may be considered pre-cooked if they require up to 12 minutes of additional cooking time, and the frozen risottos only require cooking for two to seven minutes more, CBP said in HQ H325964.
The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 17 opinion set aside a March 2022 decision in a customs spat over reimported swimsuits to hear an additional argument from the U.S., though the court ultimately reached the same conclusion.
The Court of International Trade erred by relying on information not presented to the Commerce Department in a scope case, misinterpreting the International Trade Commission's findings in the original injury proceeding and mischaracterizing statements in other ITC cases, appellant Wheatland Tube Co. argued in a Feb. 3 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe's arguments supporting the CIT's analysis "are unpersuasive," since they ignore the plain language of the relevant antidumping duty order, the brief said (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2181).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade: