The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
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.
Money laundering charges against a former oil and commodities trader for an alleged bribery scheme involving Mexican officials should not be dropped as duplicative of another ongoing lawsuit, DOJ in an Aug. 21 reply brief. The agency said the government is given “wide latitude” when charging conspiracies, adding that the indictment “plainly alleges” that only a single conspiracy existed (U.S. v. Javier Aguilar, E.D.N.Y. # 20-00390).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Aug. 24 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):
CBP's Office of Regulations & Rulings correctly overturned the Trade Remedy & Law Enforcement Directorate's (TRLED) evasion finding against Dominican company Kingtom Aluminio in an Enforce and Protect Act administrative review, Kingtom said in an Aug. 23 brief at the Court of International Trade. Kingtom is intervening in a suit by the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee (AEFTC), which seeks to overturn CBP's final determination of no evasion (Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee v. U.S., CIT # 22-00236).
The Commerce Department in an antidumping proceeding correctly used a bona fide sale analysis of a single sale of wooden cabinets by importer Dalian Hualing Wood (Hualing) from a linked investigation, DOJ argued in an Aug. 24 response at the Court of International Trade. The brief came in reply to a June motion for judgment, in which Hualing argued that Commerce illegally made separate determinations in linked antidumping and countervailing duty reviews (see 2306260033) (Dalian Hualing Wood Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00334).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Vanity mirrors with speaker and a charging port or wireless charging pad are still classifiable in the tariff schedule as mirrors, CBP said in a recent ruling, denying an importer's protest for one entry but granting it for two others on the basis that the underlying entries were untimely reliquidated.
CBP's attempts to collect a 14-year-old bond for antidumping duties on Chinese garlic may be affected by the Court of International Trade's ruling in a similar case, defendant Aegis Security said in a notice of supplemental authority. CIT Judge Richard Eaton ruled on Aug. 22 that the statute of limitations for CBP to collect on customs bonds runs six years from the date of the underlying liquidation rather than from the date that CBP demanded payment (see 2308220054). Though Aegis notes that CIT judges are not bound by the decisions of other judges on the court, the company has been arguing for a similar result (see 2210270054).
Aluminum extrusion fence parts from China imported by Fortress Iron don't meet the "finished goods kit" exception to antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China and should have been declared subject to AD/CVD, CBP found in a recently released Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) determination. The agency found substantial evidence that Fortress had evaded AD/CVD orders by importing fence components from Chinese suppliers that didn't meet the exclusion requirements while failing to declare those imports as subject to the orders.
CBP's admission that imported desk pad and planning calendars meet the dictionary definition of "calendar" is evidence that the items should have been so classified as a calendar under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. subheading 4910.00.2000 instead of the basket provision for other paper products in subheading 4820.10.4000, importer Blue Sky said in a motion for judgment filed Aug. 23 at the Court of International Trade. Blue Sky is attempting to overturn CBP's classification of four models of Blue Sky's weekly and monthly planning calendars. While both classifications are duty-free, the government's preferred classification carries additional Section 301 duties (Blue Sky The Color of Imagination v. U.S., CIT # 21-00624).