CBP wrongly classified importer Mast Industries' ladies' knitted tops with a built-in shelf bra, Mast argued in a series of complaints on May 2 at the Court of International Trade. CBP liquidated the tops under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6109.10.00, which covers tank tops and similar garments, knitted or crocheted, made of cotton, dutiable at 18.3%, among other subheadings. Mast said that its tops should be classified under subheading 6114.20.00, which provides for other garments, knitted or crocheted, made of cotton, dutiable at 10.8% to 11.1%, among other subheadings. Mast said that its cases were similar to a series of lawsuits filed by Victoria's Secret Direct wherein the court held that "knitted outer garments which provide significant body coverage and bust support are classifiable under heading 6114, HTSUS," the complaints said (Mast Industries v. United States, CIT #01-00859, #02-00198, #02-00199, #02-00200, #03-00428, #03-00714, #03-00879, #04-00274, #05-00025, #07-00112, #07-00159, #10-00053, #10-00227, #11-00024).
As countries continue to impose trade restrictions against Russia and Belarus, companies should expect longer review times and increased scrutiny on foreign direct investment involving either of those two nations, law firms said. Deal-makers in the EU should specifically prepare for more red tape resulting from a recent “sweeping” guidance from the European Commission, Fried Frank said in a May 2 alert, which could also speed up the rollout of further mandatory FDI screening regimes across Europe.
The Court of International Trade in a May 2 order rejected Canadian exporter J.D. Irving's bid to establish expedited briefing and consideration of its challenge to the Commerce Department's antidumping duty cash deposit instructions. Judge Timothy Reif said the exporter failed to establish that "good cause" exists to expedite the case since the company's requested relief can be granted even after the deadline to withdraw its request for the fourth review of the AD order on softwood lumber products from Canada.
President Donald Trump's move to expand Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to cover "derivative" products beyond certain procedural timelines was illegal since it was not part of the Section 232 tariffs' original "plan of action," a group of three steel importers argued. Filing a response brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the appellees took into account the Federal Circuit's previous ruling permitting a different tariff action beyond procedural time limits to argue that the expansion onto derivatives was illegal.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in an April 29 order consolidated two cases challenging CBP's Enforce and Protect Act investigation into the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. The cases, one brought by Kingtom Aluminio, and the other brought by Industrial Feliciano Aluminum, J.L. Trading Corp. and Puertas y Ventanas, contest CBP's position that Kingtom evaded the orders by transshipping aluminum extrusions through the Dominican Republic. Kingtom filed its complaint on April 8, arguing that CBP's position that Kingtom had exports subject to the orders is an abdication of its responsibility to conduct AD/CVD administrative reviews (see 2204110031) (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00072).
Beverly Hills watchmaker Ildico filed two separate complaints with the Court of International Trade on April 28, arguing its imported wristwatches within gold bezels and cases and synthetic sapphires on front and back should be classifiable as wrist watches with precious metal cases of heading 9101, rather than as CBP liquidated them under subheading 9102 as other wrist watches (Ildico Inc. v. U.S., #18-00076, -00136)
The Court of International Trade in an April 28 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's move to drop Section 232 duties from antidumping duty review respondent Power Steel's U.S. price for two entries of steel concrete rebar. The result is a de minimis dumping rate for Power Steel. In the one-page order, Judge Jane Restani said that as no party intends to submit further filings, the remand is sustained.
Importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, didn't need to file a protest to establish jurisdiction to challenge the liquidation of its entries since there was nothing to protest within 180 days of liquidation, SIS said in an April 29 reply brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. DOJ continues to "improperly oversimplify the analysis" by repeating the "mantra" that the importer was required to file a protest to contest the liquidation of the entries, SIS argued, seeking remand to the Court of International Trade (Acquisition 362, LLC dba Strategic Import Supply v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1161).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York: