Extruded aluminum component parts imported by Kam Kiu for use in the manufacture of elastomeric aluminum bushings for cars are not finished “subparts” and were correctly found by the Commerce Department to be subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China, the Court of International Trade ruled on Sept. 3. The extruded aluminum parts, which were the subject of a scope ruling issued by Commerce in 2013 (see 13112525), are combined with the rubber bushing after importation, and aren’t imported in finished form. Though they are designed to be used only on the car for which they were manufactured, the scope of duties on aluminum extrusions includes fabricated aluminum extrusions, said the court. And because they aren’t ready for their intended use as imported, they are not eligible for exemptions from duties for finished merchandise and finished goods kits, said CIT.
Court of International Trade
The United States Court of International Trade is a federal court which has national jurisdiction over civil actions regarding the customs and international trade laws of the United States. The Court was established under Article III of the Constitution by the Customs Courts Act of 1980. The Court consists of nine judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and is located in New York City. The Court has jurisdiction throughout the United States and has exclusive jurisdictional authority to decide civil action pertaining to international trade against the United States or entities representing the United States.
L-carnitine vitamins imported by Sigma-Tau are classifiable as ammonium salts rather than as vitamins, and are ineligible for duty free treatment because they are found in only one table of the HTS Pharmaceutical Appendix, said the Court of International Trade on Sept. 3. Faced with a decision on whether the tariff heading for vitamins describes a specific product by name or the way a product is used, CIT ruled that the heading includes components of both, to the detriment of Sigma-Tau’s case.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug 31 - Sept. 6:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug 24-30:
The Court of International Trade will allow a fraud penalty case against a Florida seafood importer to proceed, denying on Aug. 24 a motion to dismiss from Rupari Food Services. Rupari contended CBP did not provide enough evidence of fraud to back its $2.8 million penalty case. However, relying heavily on the controversial testimony of a Rupari customer relating a conversation he had with a now-deceased Rupari employee, CIT ruled that the government made enough of a case to survive a motion to dismiss.
No lawsuits are listed in the court's PACER database as having been filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug 17-23:
The clear bag that a seven piece comforter set is shipped and sold in does not change the classification of the linens as a set, CBP said in a ruling on June 12 (here). In the internal advice ruling, HQ H250132, CBP looked whether the parts of a set should be classified separately due to inclusion of the bag within the set. The importer, Extreme Linen argued that the set doesn't satisfy the requirements for classification as "goods put up for retail set." But "only if a group of articles classifiable in different headings and packaged together fail the requirements of a set may they be classified separately," said CBP.
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 20 denied a motion from the government to collect penalties for negligent misclassification from an importer that appears to have gone out of business (here). Following the company’s prior disclosure that it had misclassified entries of medical scrubs, Selecta had filed a prior disclosure and paid CBP over $800,000 in unpaid duties. The government then brought a penalty action under 19 USC 1592, seeking to collect a civil penalty of $51,102. By then Selecta had disappeared, so CIT declared the company to be in “default,” meaning the court had to accept all of the government’s arguments to be true, provided they are sound. However, in its complaint, the government alleged only that Selecta had made “material false statements” that “constituted negligent violations” of Section 1592 “because Selecta failed to exercise reasonable care.” The complaint lacked “specific, well-pled facts” to convince the court that a negligent violation of Section 1592 had occurred, said CIT. As such, the court denied the government’s motion, and gave it 60 days to fix its complaint before the case is dismissed.
Post-liquidation interest on unpaid duties is subject to the same protest procedures as the duties themselves, said the Court of International Trade on Aug. 19 as it found surety American Home Assurance Company (AHAC) liable for interest on an importer’s unpaid antidumping duties in a recovery case brought by the government. Because AHAC did not challenge denied protests related to CBP’s demands for payment, it is barred from raising legal arguments against CBP’s collection of the interest, said CIT.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug 10-16: