The Court of International Trade in a decision made public Nov. 4 enjoined the liquidation of importer Retractable Technologies' entries of syringes during the course of its challenge to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's Section 301 tariff hike on needles and syringes. However, Judge Claire Kelly rejected Retractable's bids for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on the collection of Section 301 tariffs on needles and syringes, finding that Retractable failed to show it would suffer irreparable harm if the duties are collected. The judge added that the balance of equities and public interest both weigh against taking such action.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The U.S. agreed to pay importer Dis Vintage $34,591.27 in duty refunds and interest payments in a tariff classification spat on worn clothing. The parties filed a stipulated judgment with the Court of International Trade on Nov. 1, agreeing to classify the goods under the following five subheadings: 6104.63.20, dutiable at 28.2%; 6309.00.00, free of duty; 6203.20.20, dutiable at 19.7%; 6203.43.40, dutiable at 27.9%; and 6110.30.30, dutiable at 32% (Dis Vintage v. United States, CIT # 23-00033).
Importer IKKO International Trading on Oct. 29 asked the Court of International Trade for a six-month extension, until April 30, to remain on the case management calendar. The U.S. consented to the move, which comes in a tariff classification suit on sushi ginger. IKKO said the issue is being litigated in another CIT case, Wismettac Asian Foods v. U.S., adding that it's considering asking for a stay in the present action. IKKO said it has taken longer to finalize its approach than anticipated "due to the departure from the undersigned firm of the attorney who previously had primary responsibility for this litigation" (IKKO International Trading v. U.S., CIT # 22-00119).
Watches that have case backs set with watch glass made of nonprecious materials -- such as synthetic sapphire -- are not considered to have cases made "wholly" of precious metal and are classified differently than watches that do, the Court of International Trade ruled Nov. 1. The holding came as a watch importer’s motion for judgment in a 2018 case wound up being denied, and the government’s was granted, by CIT Judge Jane Restani.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The U.S. once again filed a motion to dismiss a case brought by an aluminum rod importer that alleged the Commerce Department had denied a Section 232 tariff exclusion request by pointing to promises made by the importer’s domestic competitor. The U.S. called most of the importer’s claims untimely and unactionable (Prysmian Cables and Systems USA v. U.S., CIT # 24-00101).
Individual importer Timothy Brown filed a complaint on Oct. 31 at the Court of International Trade seeking nearly $20,000 in duty drawback related to the shipment of a Porsch 911 Turbo S luxury vehicle. Brown said he in 2017 imported the vehicle, which was classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8703.24.0190, dutiable at 2.5% (Timothy Brown v. United States, CIT # 20-03733).
Importer Tingley Rubber Corp. told the Court of International Trade that its latex rubber boot savers should be classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6401.99.30, dutiable at 25%, and not under subheading 6401.92.9000, dutiable at 37.5%. The company filed a complaint on Oct. 31 after initially filing its case in 2020. The company said CBP issued a HQ ruling in 2019 confirming that its boot savers properly fit under subheading 6401.99.30. Tingley's preferred subheading covers footwear that covers the knee and is designed for use without closures. Meanwhile, subheading 6401.92.90 covers other footwear that covers the ankle but not the knee (Tingley Rubber Corp. v. United States, CIT # 20-03711).
Swiss watch importer Ildico’s tariff classification case was dismissed Nov. 1 by Court of International Trade Judge Jane Restani. Looking at the common definition of the term “watch glass” -- using both British and American English dictionaries -- she determined that watch glasses on the backs of watches are part of the cases, so the synthetic crystal glass on the backs of the subject merchandise means their cases aren’t made wholly of precious metal. As a result, the judge found that the watches should be classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9102 for watches with cases made of materials other than precious metals, the heading preferred by the government, rejecting Ildico’s preferred heading, 9101 (Ildico v. U.S., CIT # 18-00136).