Target General Merchandise said in a Feb. 20 response to a U.S. cross-motion for judgment in its classification case that it no longer will be disputing CBP’s classification of its artificial Christmas trees, explaining that the government is already arguing that the trees should be classified under a duty-free Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading (Target General Merchandise v. United States, CIT Consol. # 15-00069).
Importer Mitsubishi Power Americas asked leave Feb. 18 from the Court of International Trade to file a short sur-reply to the U.S.’s support of a cross-motion for judgment (Mitsubishi Power Americas v. United States, CIT # 21-00573).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
After the Court of International Trade denied hoverboard importer 3BTect’s motion to strike three expert reports from the record of its classification dispute, the importer switched Feb. 14 to targeting the factual basis of the government’s cross-motion for judgment in a 72-page response brief (3BTech v. United States, CIT # 21-00026).
President Donald Trump's directive in his proclamation expanding Section 232 steel tariffs to assess penalties for the misclassification of entries resulting in non-payment of the duties without regard for "evidence of mitigating factors" may run afoul of existing customs laws, trade lawyers said. Even if the directive stays within the bounds of the current statutory scheme, expect more prior disclosures and proactive steps to ensure the proper customs treatment of steel entries, the lawyers added.
The inaugural use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs, which saw President Donald Trump set a 10% duty on all goods from China (see 2502030044), has sparked plenty of speculation as to how these tariffs could be challenged in court. One such argument is a statutory claim rooted in the text of IEEPA.
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
An importer of 3D pen kits again said Feb. 14 that the U.S. hadn’t met the procedural requirements to shield unredacted internal CBP communication under the deliberative process privilege (Quantified Operations Limited v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 22-00178).
The U.S. said Feb. 7 that importer Mitsubishi’s catalyst blocks were actually filters, despite the importer’s arguments otherwise, and thus was properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8421 and assessed Section 301 tariffs (Mitsubishi Power Americas v. United States, CIT # 21-00573).
Dicycles with electric motors and gyroscopic balancing technology, marketed and known as "hoverboards," are "chidren's cycles" and not "bicycles," importer GoLabs, doing business as GOTRAX, argued in a Feb. 14 complaint at the Court of International Trade. As a result, the importer argued that the hoverboards fit under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9503.00.0090 and not subheading 8711.60.0050 as classified by CBP (GoLabs Inc. v. United States, CIT # 25-00003).