Sunnyvale Seafood has dropped two cases at the Court of International Trade concerning imported fish fillets brought in 2021, according to two separate motions filed Jan. 31. The cases challenged CBP's denial of Sunnyvale's protests over the applicability of Section 301 tariffs to its frozen tilapia fillets imported under subheading 0304.61.0000. Sunnyvale had argued that it should have been excluded from Section 301 tariffs via a product exclusion under subheading 9903.88.43. Sunnyvale did not comment when asked about the dismissals (SSC, Inc. v. United States, CIT # 21-00024, -00555).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Jan. 26 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 lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Counterweights for mini excavators should be subject to Section 301 tariffs because they qualify as parts for "backhoes," the government argued in a Jan. 23 brief at the Court of International Trade. DOJ asked the court to deny plaintiff Norca Engineered Products' Nov. 3 motion for summary judgment and to find that the counterweights are backhoe parts and therefore not subject to a Section 301 exclusion (Norca Engineered Products v. U.S., CIT #21-00305).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Jan. 18 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 Court of International Trade in a Jan. 17 order dismissed two customs cases seeking the retroactive application of Section 301 exclusions. Given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's finding in ARP Materials v. U.S., which said that an importer needs a protest with CBP to retroactively apply Section 301 exclusions (see 2209060035), the trade court dismissed the two cases -- from Poppin and Lighting Partners Jax. Both actions sought to establish jurisdiction at the court under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, as opposed to Section 1581(a) (Poppin v. United States, CIT # 20-00158) (Lighting Partners Jax v. United States, CIT # 20-03529).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Jan. 11 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):
Three cases that were suspended pending the resolution of an action over whether protests are needed to apply retroactive Section 301 exclusions continue to be stayed pending resolution of the massive Section 301 litigation, according to a Jan. 6 order from the Court of International Trade (Trebbianno v. U.S., CIT # 20-00135) (Westport v. U.S., CIT # 20-00190) (Uniflex Church Furnishings v. U.S., CIT # 20-03571).