The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Honeywell International on June 7 moved to unseal various pleadings in its customs case on the classification of chordal, radial and web brake segments used in aircraft wheel and brake assemblies. The importer moved to unseal its motion for summary judgment and five of seven exhibits accompanying the motion. Honeywell said the government consented to the motion (Honeywell International v. United States, CIT # 17-00256).
Another importer alleged June 7 that the Commerce Department improperly relied on competitors’ unsupported claim that they, as domestic producers, could provide enough of an input -- aluminum rod, this time -- to cover the importer’s needs. As a result, the importer had been forced to pay “tens of millions” of dollars in Section 232 tariffs, it said (Prysmian Cables and Systems, USA v. U.S., CIT # 24-00101).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Biden administration's proposed Section 301 tariff hikes on various Chinese goods (see 2405220072) would continue to skirt World Trade Organization commitments and strip the global economy of international tribunals, which are key to curbing "persistent protectionism," said George Washington Law School professor Steve Charnovitz in comments on the proposed tariffs.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer MTD Products filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade June 5 claiming its spark-ignition reciprocating or rotary internal combustion piston engines from China were improperly denied Section 301 exclusions by CBP (MTD Products v. U.S., CIT # 22-00174).
A company that imports air fryers brought a complaint to the Court of International Trade on June 5, arguing that its fryer are not “cooking stoves, ranges or ovens” but rather fall under the relevant “other” category (Sensio Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00152).