A domestic producer coalition filed petitions last week with the Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission requesting new antidumping duties on paper file folders from Cambodia and Sri Lanka, as well as countervailing duties on paper file folders from Cambodia. Commerce will now decide whether to begin AD/CVD investigations, which could result in the imposition of permanent AD/CVD orders and the assessment of AD and CVD on importers.
Customs Duty
A Customs Duty is a tariff or tax which a country imposes on goods when they are transported across international borders. Customs Duties are used to protect countries' economies, residents, jobs, and environments, by limiting the flow of imported merchandise, especially restricted and prohibited goods, into the country. The Customs Duty Rate is a percentage determined by the value of the article purchased in the foreign country and not based on quality, size, or weight.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of Oct. 7-13 and Oct. 14-20:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit last week held that tire retailer Texas Truck Parts & Tire was the "beneficial owner" of tires imported by Chinese manufacturers and, as such, is liable for excise taxes on the imports (Texas Truck Parts & Tire v. United States, 5th Cir. # 23-20588).
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
A domestic producer coalition recently filed petitions with the Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission requesting new antidumping and countervailing duties on thermoformed molded fiber products from China and Vietnam. Commerce will now decide whether to begin AD/CVD investigations, which could result in the imposition of permanent AD/CVD orders and the assessment of AD and CVD on importers.
Felicia Pullam, executive director of trade relations at CBP, defended the administration's proposal to end de minimis eligibility for goods subject to Section 301 tariffs as workable, arguing that charging a $2 fee per de minimis package will allow the agency to hire more staff to screen for contraband, and pushing back on industry arguments that collecting tariffs on low-value packages costs the agency more than that revenue.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 8 said the Court of International Trade improperly rejected the Commerce Department's inclusion of door thresholds imported by Worldwide Door Components and Columbia Aluminum Products in the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. Judges Sharon Prost, Richard Linn and Todd Hughes said Commerce adequately explained on remand that the door thresholds are subassemblies and thus not qualified for the finished merchandise exception.
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 7 denied importer Interglobal Forest's application for attorney's fees in its suit challenging CBP's affirmative finding of evasion of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China. Judge Mark Barnett said that Interglobal wasn't a "prevailing party" in the action because the evasion determination was reversed without admitting to an agency error and only after the Commerce Department reversed its scope finding after separate legal action at the trade court.
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 7 sent a customs classification dispute on truck steps to a bench trial after finding that the undisputed facts are insufficient for conducting a principal use analysis on whether the products are "side protective attachments." Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves held that while a Section 301 exclusion for "side protective attachments" is a principal use provision, and not a provision for an individual product, the court can't at this time properly assess the imports at issue under a principal use framework.
CBP is clarifying how the ACE Entry Type 86 Test governing de minimis shipments applies to customer returns under Chapter 98 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S., according to an Oct. 4 cargo systems message. The agency said a Chapter 98 classification is not applicable if using the Section 321 duty exemption under Type 86. The merchandise would still enter duty-free under Type 86, but the consignee will be subject to the $800/day de minimis limit, CBP said. "Filers should assess whether filing under the Entry Type 86 or filing a formal or informal entry under Chapter 98 is more advantageous when processing returns, as both are permissible," it said.