Bike Seat Importer Unable to Show CBP Strayed From Established Classification Treatment, CIT Says
CBP didn't deviate from an established classification treatment for imported bike seats for kids when it applied a higher duty classification than what was sought by the importer, the Court of International Trade said in an Aug. 25 decision. The finding is the result of a lawsuit filed by Kent International, which said CBP didn't give Kent the same treatment as competitors when it classified Kent child bicycle seat entries in heading 8714, dutiable at 10 percent, rather than in a duty-free provision of subheading 9401.80. CBP declined to reliquidate the entries in 2015 (see 1504290018).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Though CBP had issued Kent a ruling in 2005 that the merchandise was dutiable at the higher rate, it had subsequently granted two of Kent’s protests and issued several rulings to other importers finding similar merchandise duty-free. Kent was then able to file a protest and have the seats reliquidated as duty-free. But when Kent subsequently requested a further review to resolve the conflicting rulings, CBP said it was unable to because the agency had already liquidated the entries under the requested classification. After three entries made in 2010 were liquidated under heading 8714, Kent protested and requested that the goods be classified as duty-free. CBP rejected the request.
Kent's lawsuit argued that CBP strayed from its treatment provided to other Kent entries. The government countered by pointing to Kent entries at the Port of Long Beach between 2008 and 2014 that were liquidated under the 8714 classification, which showed CBP didn't consistently apply the classification during any two-year period “on a national basis.” The court agreed with the government, even though some of Kent's Long Beach entries aren't final, due to ongoing protests. “The regulation does not limit the considerations of the court to only 'final Customs actions,'” CIT said.
Kent also cited CBP classification rulings issued to competitors as evidence of a classification treatment. But, due to the Long Beach entries, Kent was still unable to demonstrate a two-year period of consistent classification in heading 9401, CIT said. As a result, the court need not rule on the issue of whether third-party entries can be used to demonstrate a claim of treatment, it said.
CIT also found Kent unable to show a de facto “established and uniform practice.” As was true in the argument over “treatment,” Kent couldn't overcome the fact that the Long Beach entries “demonstrate that Customs did not engage in an established and uniform practice of classifying child safety seats under heading 9401.”