The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Nov. 29 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):
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 following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Court of International Trade stayed a case from importer Hanwha Q Cells America (Hanwha) (Hanwha Q Cells America v. U.S., CIT # 22-00305), pending the resolution of a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit it says is related. The case challenges Presidential Proclamation 10101, which reimposed safeguard duties on previously excluded bifacial crystalline silicon photovoltaic (CSPV) solar panels, was issued in violation of the Trade Act of 1974. The legality of the modification proclamation is "common to other cases," Hanwha said. One of those cases is currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit, Solar Energy Industries Association v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 2022-1392, so staying the current case until those issues are resolved by the higher court promotes judicial economy, Hanwha argued. A stay presents no hardship to the government, Hanwha said. Staying the proceedings would not impact the government's ability to collect ongoing import duties and it saves DOJ from devoting resources to relitigating the same issues as it had previously in Solar Energy, it said. The court agreed, staying the matter.
CBP has initiated a formal Enforce and Protect Act investigation on whether Vanguard Trading Company evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders on quartz surface products from China and imposed interim measures, according to a Nov. 17 notice. The investigation began Aug. 11, following an allegation by Cambria Company LLC, which suggested that Vanguard had evaded the AD/CVD orders by failing to declare that the slab products it is importing are actually QSP from China -- specifically, that a brand of engineered countertop surfaces named Lucciare is labeled as “artificial marble” upon import when it should correctly be classified as QSP, subject to the orders.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Commerce Department did not err in its scope ruling that found that two-ply hardwood plywood fell under the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China, the government said in a Nov. 18 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The brief asked the court to sustain the underlying scope ruling (Vietnam Finewood Company Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00049).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Two Commerce Department redeterminations excluding certain ductile iron flanges from the scope of a 2003 antidumping duty order were found unsatisfactory by the Court of International Trade, since they "are not in a form in which the court could sustain" them, according to two Nov. 18 orders by Judge Timothy Stanceu. Since Commerce said on remand that it will issue a revised scope ruling if the remand submissions are affirmed, the agency is looking for approval of a decision that is not a scope determination but "instead is preliminary to such a decision." As a result, the decision "could not be put into effect should it be sustained," and Commerce would "escape direct judicial review," the judge said.