Clarity Still Needed on Consideration of Use in Tariff Classification, Customs Lawyer Says
Recent Court of International Trade decisions leave the door open for confusion among importers and customs brokers on tariff classification, customs lawyer Larry Friedman said in an April 17 blog post. Though CIT found in an April 8 decision that…
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.
use is not a consideration when classifying locking pliers imported by Irwin Industrial Tool Company(see 1904100037), it’s still unclear when use should or should not be considered in light of a 2014 Federal Circuit decision that use should be considered when classifying GRK wood screws (see 14080420). Neither tariff provision includes the terms “for use as” or “for use with,” both of which clearly signal a use provision. “Classification is a legal analysis. It is, at the same time, also performed every day by thousands of non-lawyers who are engaged in making compliance decisions for importers large and small,” Friedman said. “Even licensed brokers are not always fully aware of the details of the legal analysis of tariff language. Bright line tests are necessary to facilitate trade and to avoid creating traps for the average importer, for whom the statute is allegedly written in the language or ordinary commerce.”