Importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 claiming CBP failed to provide the company with a "statement of reasons" for the denial of its protest concerning its passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. The company said protest denial was improper because it centered on a message from the Commerce Department, which the importer wasn't given access to (Acquisition 362, LLC dba Strategic Import Supply v. U.S., CIT # 24-00149).
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.
Womenswear company Alexis will pay nearly $7.7 million to settle a whistleblower False Claims Act case, which alleged that the company underpaid customs duties on its apparel imports, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida announced Aug. 9.
Wisconsin companies Precision Cable Assemblies and Global Engineered Products, along with their chief executives Ryan Schmus and Richard Horky, paid more than $10 million to settle charges they avoided millions of dollars in customs duties on Chinese goods, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Wisconsin announced.
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated July 31 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 earlier this month heard oral argument on whether a CBP protest denial effectively revoked a prior CBP protest decision by applying a different tariff classification to identical merchandise, and should have been subject to a notice-and-comment period (Under the Weather v. U.S., CIT # 21-00211).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit last week affirmed the convictions of six companies for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, customs fraud and promotional money laundering. However, the court said the trial court failed to resolve the parties' dispute on the value of the companies' warehouses before finding that they "lacked the ability to pay" the over $1.8 billion judgment and "ordering a nominal payment schedule."
The Commerce Department was allowed to rescind the antidumping and countervailing duty reviews on wood moldings and millwork products from China, the U.S. said July 30 in response to several exporters’ April 25 motion for judgment (see 2404240065) (China Cornici Co. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00217).
Importer King Maker Marketing told the Court of International Trade on Aug. 2 that the date of importation of its paper-wrapped cigarettes was the date on which the goods were withdrawn from a foreign-trade zone and not the date on which they entered the FTZ. As such, the company said in a complaint that its duty drawback claims weren't untimely, since they were filed within five years of the dates on which the goods were withdrawn from the FTZ (King Maker Marketing v. United States, CIT # 24-00134).
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York last week ordered importer Delta Uniforms and its owner, George Iloulian, to pay over $1.3 million for avoiding customs duties on medical uniforms, footwear and other apparel. Judge Paul Gardephe said they violated the False Claims Act and must pay triple the amount of the evaded duties and a $557,880 civil penalty.
The Commerce Department on remand at the Court of International Trade revised the duty drawback adjustment for exporter Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret, resulting in a de minimis antidumping duty rate for the company in the AD investigation on common alloy aluminum sheet from Turkey (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 21-00246).