The U.S. and plaintiff Tokyo Ohka Kogyo America filed April 10 a stipulated judgment for a 2017 case involving a dispute over the classification of certain photoresists (Toykyo Ohka Kogyo America v. United States, CIT # 17-00070).
CBP improperly declined to accept the proper valuation of various iron and steel products imported by NOA Brands America, the importer argued in an April 10 complaint at the Court of International Trade (NOA Brands America v. United States, CIT # 23-00109).
In April 8 oral argument involving a large number of parties, Court of International Trade Judge Jane Restani said she thinks she knows how she’ll rule on a petitioner’s Tier 2 price benchmark question about whether Kazakh natural gas export prices are available to Russian purchasers (Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00239).
Disagreeing with exporter BASF, the U.S. argued April 7 that the exporter’s beta-carotene product Betatene had been properly classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule because it was used as a specific -- not general -- food additive, and its additives were used for more than just stable transportation or preservation (BASF Corporation v. United States, CIT Consol. # 12-00422).
The U.S. and importer Vecoplan filed a stipulated judgment at the Court of International Trade granting duty-free treatment to the importer's grinding machines. CBP initially classified the entries, which are described as "industrial size reduction machines that operate with a single shaft rotor with cutting inserts," under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8479.89.94. This subheading covers certain machines and mechanical appliances with individual functions and comes with a 2.5% duty rate. The parties agreed to classify the goods under duty-free subheading 8479.82.00, which covers "[m]ixing, kneading, crushing, grinding, screening, sifting, homogenizing, emulsifying or stirring machines" (Vecoplan v. United States, CIT # 20-00141).
The Court of International Trade on April 8 rejected Georgia woman Skeeter-Jo Stoute-Francois' challenge to four questions on the October 2021 customs broker license exam. Judge Lisa Wang held that for three of the questions, Stoute-Francois formulated her own "factual scenarios" in arguing that there wasn't enough information to select the correct answer. For the remaining question, Wang said CBP's correct answer choice was backed by substantial evidence.
Counsel for Simplified, a small business that became the first to challenge in court the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, told us that he believes jurisdiction to be proper in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and not the Court of International Trade. Andrew Morris of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, the conservative advocacy group bringing the case, said jurisdiction is not reserved for the trade court, since IEEPA is not a statute that authorizes tariffs.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Importer GoLabs, doing business as GOTRAX, on April 4 dropped its customs suit at the Court of International Trade on the classification of its "hoverboards." The importer filed a complaint in February, alleging that dicycles with electric motors and gyroscopic balancing technology, marketed as hoverboards, are "children's cycles" and not "bicycles" (see 2502140057). The importer said the hoverboards fit under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9503.00.0090 and not subheading 8711.60.0050, which comes with a 25% Section 301 duty under secondary subheading 9903.88.02, as classified by CBP. John Peterson, counsel for GOTRAX, said the case will be refiled in a "week or so" due to a "minor jurisdictional glitch" (GoLabs Inc. v. United States, CIT # 25-00003).
Importer Honeywell pushed back April 4 against a U.S. motion for rehearing after the Court of International Trade sided with it to find its precut radial, chordial and web fabric pieces, used in airplane brakes, were “parts of an aircraft” rather than “fabrics” (see 2501300051). The trade court hadn't misapplied the Harmonized Tariff Schedule's General Rules of Interpretation, it said (Honeywell International Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 17-00256).