Customs Duty

CBP made a final determination that Amlink Sourcing evaded antidumping and countervailing duties on lightweight thermal paper from China (A-570-920/C-570-921) by misdeclaring subject goods as not covered by any AD/CVD orders and, as a result, failing to pay cash deposits on the merchandise.

The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Aug. 26 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):

Advanced Extrusion, Ex-Tech Plastics and Multi-Plastics Extrusions, defendant-intervenors in an antidumping case, opposed plaintiff OCTAL's motion to expand the word limit and ability to submit reply comments to the Commerce Department's remand results. The intervenors said in an Aug. 24 brief that OCTAL's comment schedule would “improperly extinguish” their opportunity to comment on the remand results, which could prejudice their rights on appeal (OCTAL, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03697).

A federal jury found six companies guilty of a conspiracy to defraud the U.S. through a “wire-and-customs” fraud scheme in which $1.8 billion in antidumping and countervailing duties were avoided on aluminum extrusions imported to the U.S. from China, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District 0f California said Aug. 23. Disguising the extrusions as “pallets,” the goods were shipped to the U.S. and sold to fraudulently inflate a Chinese company's revenues, the Department of Justice said. Litigation over the aluminum pallets has been going on in multiple venues (see 2011090041).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

Plaintiff Nucor Corporation mischaracterized, oversimplified and took the Commerce Department's remand results out of context in its comments on a submission in a case stemming from the agency's countervailing duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea, the Department of Justice said in Aug. 18 comments at the Court of International Trade, backing the remand redetermination. DOJ continued to back Commerce's contention that the South Korean government did not provide a countervailable subsidy to producers of hot-rolled steel through cheap electricity. Contrary to what Nucor's comments assert, Commerce adhered to the statute when completing its less-than-adequate remuneration analysis in the CVD case and properly accounted for the Korean Power Exchange's role in the electricity market, DOJ said (POSCO, et al. v. U.S., CIT #16-00227).

The Court of International Trade ruled that Logitech's webcams and ConferenceCams shall be classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8517, receiving duty-free treatment. In an Aug. 24 ruling, Judge Leo Gordon applied a use analysis to the webcams and ConferenceCams to determine if they belonged under subheading 8517, as Logitech suggested, or subheading 8525, dutiable at 2.1%, as the government suggested. Ultimately finding that the goods fit under both headings, Gordon went with 8517 as the proper classification for the products since it describes them "with a greater degree of accuracy and certainty."

Apple and Intel were the two heavy hitters joining the Section 301 litigation Aug. 20, when two dozen complaints in total were filed at the Court of International Trade seeking to vacate the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese goods and get the duties refunded. It was the highest volume of complaints filed on a single day since early in the litigation that will be a year old Sept. 10. Aug. 20 marked two years after the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative published its Federal Register notice imposing List 4A tariffs (see 2108190063). Court rules require plaintiffs to begin an action within two years “after the cause of action first accrues.” Intel “timely filed this action with respect to any entry of merchandise on which List 4A duties have been assessed, and any entry of merchandise on which List 3 duties were not definitively assessed before August 20, 2019,” the chipmaker’s complaint said, using language typical in the others filed the same day. Importers will likely argue alternatively in complaints yet to come that their two-year clocks started when List 4A took effect Sept. 1, 2019, or when they paid their first tariffs or their customs entries reached liquidation.

Singapore Customs arrested three men Aug. 18, seizing more than 4,700 cartons of cigarettes for which duties had not been paid, the customs agency said Aug. 23. Customs initially observed boxes suspected of having the duty-unpaid cigarettes, then inspected a Chinese national's two vehicles, finding 1,700 cartons of the illegally shipped cigarettes and arrested the driver. Singapore Customs officers also found 2,996 cartons and 40 packets of duty-unpaid cigarettes in a van driven by a Singaporean national with a Malaysian man in the passenger seat. The officers then inspected the Singaporean man's home, where an additional 64 cartons and 37 packets of cigarettes were seized, Singapore Customs said. Duties and taxes evaded totaled approximately $400,000 and $32,000 (in Singapore dollars), respectively, it said.

OtterBox's victory in a Court of International Trade case setting a lower duty rate in a customs challenge on smartphone covers cannot be extended to a prior disclosure made by OtterBox, CIT said in an Aug. 18 opinion. Judge Claire Kelly ruled that the court did not have the jurisdiction to make the determination that entries not part of the Summons of the case should be reliquidated.