CIT says Samsung's TVs are not NAFTA-Originating; Issues Similar to Hitachi Case
The Court of International Trade denied Samsung’s challenge to CBP’s Harmonized Tariff Schedule classification of parts used in its plasma screen televisions, saying that CBP correctly found the parts at issue to be flat panel screen assemblies. CBP’s classification had resulted in denial of NAFTA duty free treatment for the televisions, because no tariff-shift rule of origin applies to the flat panel screen assemblies, which were manufactured in Korea. The issues before CBP were similar to those of the protests underlying the Hitachi protest time limit case, currently awaiting a decision on whether the Supreme Court will hear the case. CBP also went over its statutory two-year time limit for Samsung’s protests, but Samsung filed for accelerated disposition rather than challenge CBP on the time limit, and had its protest deemed denied.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Between December 2004 and June 2005, Samsung imported flat panel plasma televisions and video monitors from Mexico into the U.S. The imported goods contained one of two versions of a plasma display panel module, which were manufactured in Korea. Samsung filed a request for NAFTA post-importation duty refunds on the imported TVs, but CBP found that the plasma display panel modules were flat panel screen assemblies, classified in subheading 8529.90.53, and not eligible for a tariff shift pursuant to the NAFTA rules of origin. Samsung protested the refund denial, arguing that the modules were instead correctly classified under HTS subheading 8529.90.89 (other parts of television receivers), and eligible for a NAFTA tariff shift. CBP never acted on the protests, so Samsung in November 2009 filed for accelerated disposition. The protests were deemed denied after CBP failed to act on the request.
Samsung argued that the plasma display panel modules did not qualify as flat panel screen assemblies because they lacked control electronics. But CIT found that the logic boards in the modules were control electronics, and so the modules were correctly classified as flat panel screen assemblies, ineligible for NAFTA duty-free treatment if manufactured outside of a NAFTA country. Samsung also said a version of the module that was imported with an unattached logic board was not a flat panel screen assembly. CIT disagreed, and said proper application of General Rule of Interpretation 2(a) and related explanatory notes, which say articles imported unassembled should be classified as the complete article if they only require assembly, means the fact that the logic board was unattached is irrelevant.
(Samsung International v. U.S., Slip Op. 12-144, dated 11/21/12, Judge Restani)
(Attorneys: Felicia Nowels of Akerman Senterfitt for plaintiff Samsung; Marcella Powell for defendant U.S. government)
(See ITT’s Online Archives 11111428 for summary of the appeals court’s ruling in Hitachi. CBP delayed acting on Hitachi’s protests because they involved similar issues to this case. See also ITT’s Online Archives 11111428 for summary of the most recent brief filed in support of a Supreme Court hearing for Hitachi.)