Janssen Ortho and the government have signed a settlement agreement regarding the duty-free treatment of an active pharmaceutical ingredient imported by Janssen Ortho, according to an Oct. 17 motion asking the Court of International Trade to dismiss related cases. The Oct. 14 settlement agreement resolved all outstanding claims in the three cases and applied the Court’s final judgment from Janssen Ortho, LLC v. U.S., case number 13-00296, to all the relevant entries and drawback claims. In that case, the court ruled that darunavir ethanolate is properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. subheading 2935.00.60 and eligible for duty-free treatment. The settlement preceded an Oct. 17 deadline ordered by CIT Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves, which would have required the company to refile its 13-00296 complaint if the parties could not come to a settlement agreement. Neither Janssen nor DOJ responded to requests for comment on the settlement.
Drawback
A duty drawback is a refund by CBP of the duties, taxes, or fees paid on imported goods, which were imposed upon importation as prescribed in 19 U.S.C. 1313(d). More broadly, a drawback also includes the refund or remission of other excise taxes pursuant to other provisions of law.
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Oct. 3 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
Inconsistent documentation cost a manufacturer of plastic pallets, trays and lids duty-free treatment on returned items, CBP said in a June 13 HQ ruling addressed to the Automotive and Aerospace Center of Excellence and Expertise, directing it to deny a protest by ZF TRW Canada (ZF).
As companies work to move assembly out of China so that the goods they export to the U.S. won't be hit with Section 301 tariffs, they have to grapple with the fact that CBP may still consider a good made in Mexico, Malaysia, Vietnam or elsewhere to be a product of China if enough of its innards were made in China.
CBP improperly denied an importer's "mixed use" drawback claim, despite provisions in CBP's regulations allowing claims based on imports used for both pre- and post-Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act (TFTEA) drawback, an importer told the Court of International Trade in a complaint filed May 16 (Parkdale America LLC v. United States, CIT #22-00019).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on March 7 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
The argument that a Turkish duty drawback program fails to qualify for a drawback adjustment in an antidumping duty case disregards "decades of [Commerce Department] precedent" over the program, Turkish exporter Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret said in a Feb. 22 brief at the Court of International Trade. Responding to AD petitioner Aluminum Association Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet Trade Enforcement Working Group, Assan said that the Turkish Inward Processing Regime (IPR) has repeatedly been found by Commerce to be eligible for a duty drawback adjustment by passing the agency's two-prong analysis on drawback (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #21-00246).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: