The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. filed a motion for default judgment on Aug. 7 against importer E-Dong, U.S.A. in pursuit of $234,748.30 in lost revenue due to the importer's negligent failure to pay a federal excise tax on its "Korean distilled beverage soju." The government said E-Dong lied on customs forms by misclassifying the distilled liquor as rice wine, adding that these misstatements "constitute negligent violations for failure to exercise reasonable care and competence" (United States v. E-Dong, U.S.A., CIT # 24-00066).
The U.S. agreed to liquidate importer SW Technologies' nitrile rubber globes under the importer's preferred Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading -- a move which will see CBP refund SW Technologies ordinary customs duties and Section 301 tariffs. The goods were initially imported under HTS subheading 4015.19.1010, which covers non-medical gloves at a 3% duty rate. SW Technologies argued at the Court of International Trade that the gloves should have been classified under the duty-free subheading 4015.19.0550 as medical gloves. Per a stipulated judgment at CIT, the U.S. will liquidate the importer's entries under its preferred subheading and secondary subheading 9903.88.39, which exempts the goods from Section 301 duties (SW Technologies v. U.S., CIT # 23-00119).
An active-duty service member of the U.S. Army was charged with trying to send national defense information to a foreign adversary and trying to export controlled technical data, DOJ announced Aug. 6. Taylor Lee, stationed at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas, allegedly tried to send information on the M1A2 Abrams tank, an "armored fighting vehicle used by the U.S. military" and combat operations to the Russian military.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Importer Lanxess Corp. on Aug. 5 told the Court of International Trade that its organometallic product, made from methylaluminoxane (MAO) and trimethylaluminum in a toluene solvent, is properly classified as a "supported catalyst" and not as a solution under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 3208. The company said its customers exclusively use the product as a supported catalyst and those in the industry only refer to the product as such (Lanxess Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 23-00073).
Cable importer Cyber Power Systems disagreed Aug. 1 that its products are general “power cables” rather than “telecommunications cables,” saying in response to a U.S. cross-motion for judgment that its preferred classification is presumptively correct. The importer also raised a separation of powers argument (Cyber Power Systems (USA) v. United States, CIT # 21-00200).
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 filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Solar cell importers Trina Solar and Astronergy dismissed three cases at the Court of International Trade on Aug. 6 challenging President Donald Trump's decision from his first administration to revoke a Section 201 tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels. In a separate case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sustained Trump's decision, finding that the president didn't clearly misconstrue the statute when he revoked the tariff exclusion (see 2311130031). Jonathan Fried, counsel for Trina and Astronergy, said in an email that the companies "decided to dismiss their actions rather than relitigate the issues" settled by the Federal Circuit (Trina Solar (U.S.) v. U.S, CIT #s 22-00306, -00321) (Astronergy Solar v. U.S., CIT # 22-00308).