The Court of International Trade on Jan. 16 vacated its judgment in a customs case brought by Jing Mei Automotive (USA) under the court's Rule 60(a), which allows the court to correct clerical mistakes or mistakes stemming from oversight or omission. The judgment denied Jing Mei's motion for summary judgment and addressed four different categories of the importer's car parts. The court's Jan. 16 order didn't identify the clerical error (Jing Mei Automotive (USA) v. United States, CIT # 13-00321).
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 U.S. defended its use of Malaysian Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4402.90.1000 to value antidumping duty respondents' carbonized material over basket category 4402.90, telling the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit it permissibly selected the more specific heading as part of an AD review on activated carbon from China (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2135).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Action camera maker GoPro Inc.'s camera housings are camera parts and not cases, the Court of International Trade ruled Dec. 28, allowing them to enter the U.S. duty-free.
Exporter Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Co. failed to raise arguments on the surrogate value of bituminous coal in an antidumping duty review, the Court of International Trade ruled Dec. 21. Judge Mark Barnett said that despite Jilin Bright's argument, "this case fits squarely into the classic administrative exhaustion paradigm."
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
CBP failed to apply a Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion on G&H Diversified Manufacturing's steel tube entry, the importer argued in a Nov. 21 complaint at the Court of International Trade. G&H said CBP had said on at least three separate occasions that the classification of the imports was correct and that the classification was excluded from having to pay the national security duties as determined by the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (G&H Diversified Manufacturing v. U.S., CIT # 22-00130).
Four styles of womens' and girls' knit upper body garments are classifiable in different subheadings depending on whether the waistband at the bottom of the garments is tight to the body, CBP said in a recent ruling. The ruling, dated Nov. 14, found that one of the women's and the girls' style provided a way to be tightened at the bottom and were classifiable as "other" sweaters, pullovers and waistcoats, while the other two women's styles could not be tightened and are classifiable as blouses or shirts.
The Court of International Trade properly said that importer Nature's Touch Frozen Foods frozen fruit mixture entries are classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 0811.90.80 as "Fruit ... frozen," the U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Nov. 21 reply brief. The trade court "committed no legal error in interpreting" the terms "fruit," "other" and "food preparations" since the terms are defined by "dictionaries, Explanatory Notes, and legal standards" set by the Federal Circuit and other courts, the government said (Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2093).
Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit questioned antidumping duty petitioner Wheatland Tube Co. and respondent Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. during a Nov. 7 oral argument over Wheatland's claim that a Commerce Department scope ruling improperly excluded dual-stenciled pipe from the AD order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2181).