Imported net wraps used to secure crops in a round bale should be classified as parts of agricultural machines rather than as "warp knit fabric," importer RKW Klerks argued in its Feb. 2 opening brief at U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appeal asks the court to reverse the judgment of the Court of International Trade and hold that imported netwrap is properly classified either as parts of hay balers under subheading 8433.90.50 or as parts of agricultural machinery under subheading 8439.90.00, both duty-free. In the further alternative, RKW asked the court to remand the case to CIT for further proceedings (RKW Klerks v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1210).
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:
Timing chain guides used in automotive engines are properly classified in Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8409 as parts for use in engines rather than in heading 8708 as parts for motor vehicles, CBP said in a recently released ruling. The ruling came in response to a request for further review of a denied protest on behalf of US Tsubaki Holdings. Tsubaki entered three models of timing chain guides under heading 8409 but CBP liquidated the entries as parts of vehicles.
The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 1 order dismissed a customs case filed by California Manufacturing and Engineering Co. for lack of prosecution. The action challenged CBP's denial of its protest claiming that the importer's electric aerial work platforms should be classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8427.10.8010 rather than 8427.90.0000, qualifying for exclusions from the Section 301 tariffs under secondary subheading 9903.88.19. The case previously was placed on the customs case management calendar and not removed before the expiration of the "applicable period of time of removal" (California Manufacturing and Engineering Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00028).
The Commerce Department stuck by its decision not to investigate the alleged off-peak sale of electricity for less than adequate remuneration and not to treat POSCO Plantec -- an affiliate of countervailing duty respondent POSCO -- as a cross-owned input supplier of POSCO. Submitting its remand results to the Court of International Trade on Jan. 31, Commerce said that the subsidy allegation over the provision of off-peak electricity "did not provide sufficient evidence of a benefit for Commerce to initiate on the allegation," and that the inputs provided by POSCO Planted were not mainly dedicated to downstream product production (Nucor Corp. v. United States, CIT # 21-00182).
The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York opened and settled a case with vitamin and nutritional supplement importer International Vitamins Corp. (IVC) over the company's misclassification of its products to avoid paying customs duties, the U.S. Attorney's Office announced Jan. 30. IVC will pay $22.87 million to the U.S. and admit to its conduct. The government joined its lawsuit with a whistleblower action filed under seal pursuant to the False Claims Act, the U.S. Attorney's Office said.
Sunnyvale Seafood has dropped two cases at the Court of International Trade concerning imported fish fillets brought in 2021, according to two separate motions filed Jan. 31. The cases challenged CBP's denial of Sunnyvale's protests over the applicability of Section 301 tariffs to its frozen tilapia fillets imported under subheading 0304.61.0000. Sunnyvale had argued that it should have been excluded from Section 301 tariffs via a product exclusion under subheading 9903.88.43. Sunnyvale did not comment when asked about the dismissals (SSC, Inc. v. United States, CIT # 21-00024, -00555).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
CBP announced that it is conducting an Enforce and Protect Act investigation on whether Fortress Iron (doing business as Fortress Fence Products and Fortess Building Products) evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. According to the Jan. 24 notice, CBP found reasonable suspicion of evasion by Fortress and has imposed interim measures.