An importer of airplane parts brought a complaint to the Court of International Trade on Aug. 31, saying that an aeronautical control box produced in Illinois and imported to Japan should have been classified as an American good, not a Japanese one (Aeronautical Systems, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 20-00157).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Aug. 7-16 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 Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated July 31 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 following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer King Maker Marketing told the Court of International Trade on Aug. 2 that the date of importation of its paper-wrapped cigarettes was the date on which the goods were withdrawn from a foreign-trade zone and not the date on which they entered the FTZ. As such, the company said in a complaint that its duty drawback claims weren't untimely, since they were filed within five years of the dates on which the goods were withdrawn from the FTZ (King Maker Marketing v. United States, CIT # 24-00134).
The Commerce Department on remand at the Court of International Trade revised the duty drawback adjustment for exporter Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret, resulting in a de minimis antidumping duty rate for the company in the AD investigation on common alloy aluminum sheet from Turkey (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 21-00246).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated June 28 - July 21 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):
No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.
Importer Performance Additives will appeal a May Court of International Trade decision finding that a duty drawback claim becomes deemed liquidated after one year if the underlying import entries are also liquidated and final, with finality defined as the end of the 180-day window in which to file a protest with CBP (see 2405310073). Judge Jane Restani said that as a result one of Performance Additives' drawback claims was deemed liquidated but another of its claims wasn't, since its entries weren't liquidated and final within one year of the claim being made. The importer will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Performance Additives v. United States, CIT # 22-00044).
The Court of International Trade on May 31 said that a duty drawback claim becomes deemed liquidated after one year if the underlying import entries are also liquidated and final, with finality defined as the end of the 180-day window in which to file a protest with CBP.