Imported "LED lighting products" are properly classified as light-emitting diode (LED) lamps, not subject to Section 232 tariffs, importer Super Bright LEDs argued in a March 31 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Super Bright asked the court to reclassify its imported lights under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8539.50.00, which carries a duty rate of 2% but is not subject to additional Section 232 duties (Super Bright LEDs v. U.S., CIT # 21-00099).
Electronic goods with Chinese components such as notebooks, laptops and modems reimported to the U.S after undergoing repairs in Mexico are still subject to Section 301 tariffs on the repairs, even though the repairs are duty free under USMCA, CBP said in a February ruling.
Counterweights for mini-excavators are not parts for "backhoes" and should be excluded from Section 301 tariffs, manufacturer Norca argued in a March 29 motion at the Court of International Trade. Norca accused the government of obscuring and overcomplicating the distinction between the two equipment types (Norca Engineered Products v. U.S., CIT # 21-00305).
The Court of International Trade on March 29 dismissed a lawsuit from cell phone case maker Otter Products seeking interest on customs duty overpayments, finding it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. Judge Claire Kelly held that the Administrative Procedure Act waiver of sovereign immunity only applies to interest on deposits linked with liquidated entries. As a result, there is no specific waiver of immunity related to Otter's claim for interest for its overpayments on tendered prior disclosures "under the no-interest rule," Kelly said.
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).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Commerce made errors in its calculations, choice of data, and use of adverse facts available during the eighth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China, according to four separate motions for judgment filed at the Court of International Trade. The case combined several complaints all challenging aspects of Commerce’s final determination (see 2208300012) (Jinko Solar Import and Export Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00219).
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 should consolidate two classification cases concerning imported incontinence apparel, medical textile contractor Viecura told the court in a March 23 motion. Consolidation would "promote a speedy, just, and inexpensive resolution of cases" and is preferable to the designation of a test case because "the sole issue in these two cases is the same," Viecura said. It also would prevent the need to litigate two cases, while the court resolves the sole issue, Viecura said (Viecura v. U.S., CIT #s 21-00154, -00546).
CBP can confer classification "treatment" on a good through consistent decisions at a single port, the Court of International Trade ruled March 24. Finding importer Kent International's imported child safety seats for bicycles should be classified as seats rather than bicycle parts, Judge Leo Gordon agreed with Kent that the Port of New York/Newark's consistent classification of them as seats constituted treatment on a "national basis" because the standard does not require treatment to have been applied at multiple ports, only that CBP not take inconsistent actions over a two-year period.