The U.S. could use the False Claims Act to more aggressively combat tariff evasion, attorneys at Ropes & Gray said in a Feb. 3 alert. Companies should "carefully scrutinize their import policies and procedures to ensure they are adhering to all applicable laws," the firm said, adding that importers should ensure that they have "appropriate avenues" for internal and external parties to bring confidential reports to the company's attention.
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. on Feb. 3 brought a complaint against importer Shunny Corp., doing business as Sampac Enterprises, alleging that the company negligently misreported the country of origin of its health products to avoid import duties. The government is seeking nearly $200,000 in unpaid duties, along with a nearly $1.4 million penalty (United States v. Shunny Corp., CIT # 25-00039).
The U.S. opposed a motion from importer Quantified Operations seeking to compel the government to produce unredacted internal CBP communications on the classification of the company's 3D printing pens, arguing at the Court of International Trade that the communications are irrelevant and otherwise protected by the "deliberative-process privilege" (Quantified Operations v. United States, CIT # 22-00178).
The U.S. reiterated its stance that a cigarette seller’s products were considered imported on the date of arrival for admission to a foreign-trade zone, not the date on which they left it for domestic sale. It asked the Court of International Trade to dismiss the importer’s complaint with prejudice (King Maker Marketing v. United States, CIT # 24-00134).
The U.S. and importer Mirror Metals filed a stipulated judgment on agreed facts in which the government agreed not to apply 25% Section 232 tariffs to the importer’s steel articles (Mirror Metals v. United States, CIT #21-00144).
China opened a dispute at the World Trade Organization on Feb. 5 to challenge the new 10% tariff imposed by the U.S. on all goods from China, claiming that the measure violates the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. China said that not only do the duties violate the U.S. government's "Schedule of Concessions and Commitments," they're also "discriminatory and protectionist in nature."
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Court of International Trade dismissed eight customs cases for lack of prosecution, noting that all cases were previously placed on the customs case management calendar but weren't removed "at the expiration of the applicable period of time of removal."
President Donald Trump's decision to eliminate the duty-free de minimis threshold for goods from China, issued as part of his 10% tariff hike on Chinese products, likely will face legal challenges due to the economic importance of the de minimis rule, customs attorney Lawrence Friedman told us. However, many questions remain on the precise scope of any resulting change, along with the legal theory underpinning it.