Importer Challenges CBP's Classification of Various Silicone Compounds at CIT
CBP improperly classified importer AB Specialty Silicones' specialty silicone chemicals as organic-silicone compounds instead of as silicone compounds or organo-inorganic compounds, AB argued in an April 16 complaint at the Court of International Trade (AB Specialty Silicones v. United States, CIT # 25-00067).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
CBP liquidated 90 entries of AB's imports under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2931.90.9010, which comes with a 25% Section 301 duty. AB claims the goods should be liquidated under either subheading 2931.90.9051, dutiable at 3.7% but excluded from Section 301 tariffs, or subheading 3910.00.0000, dutiable at 3% and also excluded from Section 301 tariffs.
The goods at issue were imported between October 2018 and September 2019 and are "various silicon compounds" used in multiple industries, including personal care, roof coatings and chemical manufacturing, the importer said.
Upon liquidating the goods under subheading 2931.90.9010, CBP said the primary issue is whether the goods fit under heading 2931 as "organic-silicone compounds" or heading 3910 as "silicon compounds." And if the goods are organic-silicone compounds under heading 2931, the next issue is whether the compounds are "organo-silicone compounds" under subheading 2931.90.9010 or "other organo-inorganic compounds" under subheading 2931.90.9051.
CBP said that if the imports are "separate, chemically defined compounds from Chapter 29," they are "precluded" from being classified as silicones under heading 3910. The agency said the imports were "organic compounds" and thus must be "chemically defined" to fit under heading 2931. Of the imported products, only one compound, Phenyl Trimethicone, wasn't chemically defined and therefore classified under heading 3910. The agency said the other eight products were all "chemically defined compounds" and thus classifiable under heading 2931.
AB argued this classification is at odds with two HQ rulings and three CBP NY rulings and "premised on certain errors of fact." The errors include CBP's finding that the compounds in question have "one Si-O-Si linkage, when they in fact have none" and the agency's finding that the only difference between the compounds at issue and those considered in one of CBP's NY rulings is that the compounds at issue contain nitrogen atoms. These errors, along with others, "resulted in legal error by CBP as to the tariff classification of the subject compounds," the complaint said.