An importer’s lawsuit claiming it should have been assessed AD duties at a lower import-specific antidumping duty rate has run into jurisdictional issues, and a recently filed amended complaint from the importer that was accepted by the Court of International Trade on June 9 aims to clear them up.
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 Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated June 3 and 4 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):
CBP may issue a penalty of up to $1.3 billion to Ford Motor Co. related to the company's classification of passenger wagons that were converted to Ford Transit cargo vans, Ford said in a June 3 Securities and Exchange Commission filing. "If such a claim is brought, CBP indicated that the penalty it may seek could be as much as $652 million to $1.3 billion," the company said. "In the event a penalty is ultimately imposed against us, the amount would be based on our level of culpability as determined by the courts. We intend to vigorously defend our actions and contest payment of any amounts set forth in the pre-penalty notice."
The Commerce Department should further explain its decision to not verify customer self-certifications establishing non-use of China's Export Buyers Credit Program in a countervailing duty case, finally moving beyond the "endless loop" brought by the issue, Judge Timothy Reif of the Court of International Trade said in a May 26 opinion. In a saga reminiscent of the film Groundhog Day, according to Reif's opinion, the EBCP has been the subject of "intense litigation," prompting Reif to ask for an answer from Commerce for why it refuses to verify the customer self-certifications, leading to the application of adverse facts available for the subject goods relating to the EBCP.
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated May 27 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):
San Diego company EcoShield and its owner Samir Haj pleaded guilty in federal court to illicitly importing, selling and mailing a pesticide marketed as a killer of viruses such as COVID-19. According to a May 25 press release from the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California, Haj imported the pesticide packaged as small badges from Japan, labeled it as an air purifier and lied on declaration forms, leading to a customs duty underpayment of $33,919. Further, the product, called EcoAirDoctor, contained the ingredient sodium chlorite, which is illegal to mail because it is flammable. Haj illegally shipped the pesticide via U.S. mail. In the plea agreements, EcoShield and Haj agreed to forfeit $427,689 from the sale of the product and pay restitution of $86,754 for the unpaid duty costs and costs of disposing of the product. The defendants also paid a $42,000 fine.
The Court of International Trade remanded in part and sustained in part the Commerce Department's final results in a countervailing duty investigation on truck and bus tires from China in a May 19 opinion made public on May 26. Upholding Commerce's issuance of the CVD order and the agency's application of adverse facts available to previously unreported grants and loans by respondent Giuzhou Tyre Co., Judge Timothy Reif also sent back for further consideration Commerce's decision to apply AFA to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, along with four other elements to its duty calculation.
CBP is investigating Vivaldi Commercial and Vivaldi Interiors over allegations that the companies evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders on quartz surface products from China, the agency said in a May 10 notice it recently posted. CBP began the investigation in response to allegations filed by Cambria Company, represented by Luke Meisner of Schagrin Associates.
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated May 25 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):
The Court of International Trade erred in relying on "bypass" liquidations when evaluating the established classification treatment of bicycle seat imports, Kent International argued in a May 21 reply brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. When determining whether an established classification treatment exists, CBP can only consider liquidations in which a Customs officer has made a determination, it said. In this case, CBP incorrectly looked at bypass liquidations, which are processed automatically without review by a CBP officer, it said. The bike seat importer said in its appeal that the imported goods should be classified according to CBP's established treatment in subheading 9401, which would allow them to enter duty-free (Kent International, Inc., v. United States, Federal Circuit #21-1065).