The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
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 Commerce Department properly included Vandewater International's steel branch outlets under the scope of the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China, the Court of International Trade held in a Sept. 8 opinion. Judge Leo Gordon found that while the plaintiffs, led by Vandewater, showed that information on the record could back a finding that their outlets could be excluded from the scope of the order, he could not agree that Commerce acted unreasonably in reaching the opposing conclusion using each of the (k)(2) factors.
The misclassification of 543 entries of metal lids was simple negligence, not a fraudulent scheme, importer Crown Cork & Seal said in its motion to dismiss parts of an amended government complaint. The motion asks the court to dismiss counts of fraud and gross negligence, leaving only the negligence count (United States v. Crown Cork & Seal, USA, CIT #21-00361).
CBP and importer Launchlab reached a deal on the proper tariff classification of the company's pet carriers, the parties announced in an Aug. 4 stipulated judgment on agreed statement of facts at the Court of International Trade. The pet carriers were liquidated under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4202.92.90 as "travel, sports or similar bags," dutiable at 17.6%. Per the agreement, the pet carriers will be liquidated under subheading 6307.90.98 as other textile articles, dutiable at 7%. CBP issue refunds with interest, settling a case that began seven years ago (Launchlab v. U.S., CIT #15-00288).
While plaintiffs in a solar cell antidumping review case were satisfied with the Commerce Department's switch from adverse facts available and how it values silver paste on remand, they still contest the agency's positions on how to value backsheets and ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA) using surrogate data. In comments to the Court of International Trade, the plaintiffs, led by Risen Energy, argued the Commerce's bid to further defend its valuation of backsheet and EVA inputs is unsupported by substantial evidence (Risen Energy v. U.S., CIT Consol. #20-03743).
CBP and importer Ohka America reached a settlement over the proper tariff classification of photoresists in three different cases at the Court of International Trade. According to the three separate stipulated judgments on agreed statement of facts, the parties reached an agreement on the proper Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading for the entries, dropping the duty rate from 6.5% to 3%. CBP originally liquidated the photoresists under HTS subheading 3707.90.32, which provides for "Chemical preparations for photographic uses (other than varnishes, glues, adhesives and similar preparations...: Other:Chemical preparations for photographic uses: Other." The parties agreed, though, to liquidate the entries under subheading 3707.10.00, whch provides for “Chemical preparations for photographic uses (other than varnishes, glues, adhesives and similar preparations). Sensitizing emulsions." The cases were filed in 2005, 2006 and 2008 (Ohka America v. United States, CIT #05-00118, #06-00415, #08-00029).
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 1 order granted a joint motion for stipulated judgment, granting refunds to importer Transpacific Steel for Section 232 steel and aluminum duties paid in error. The importer was originally granted three exclusions with the wrong Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading listed in them. After having its resubmitted exclusion requests denied, Transpacific took to the trade court to seek the exclusions and refunds for the Section 232 duties paid. It received just that following a settlement with the U.S. (Transpacific Steel v. United States, CIT #21-00362).
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 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 following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: